Open Questions about Neutrinos Today

  • I
  • Thread starter john baez
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Neutrinos
  • Featured
In summary: Is there a massless mass eigenstate?In summary, there are many open questions about neutrinos. Scientists are still trying to figure out the correct theory of neutrinos, why they are almost but not quite massless, and if there are any right-handed neutrinos. There are also questions about sterile neutrinos, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force.
  • #71
valenumr said:
This a confusing point for me. If neutrinos have mass, can they have chirality? And another point... Right handed neutrinos "don't exist" because they don't interact in EW theory. At least that is my understanding.
All SM fundamental fermions have chirtality.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #73
I think KATRIN is a great experiment. But one must be careful to regard projections as estimates. They will release their results when they are ready. Sometimes it takes longer.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and exponent137
  • #74
News about KATRIN:
https://www.katrin.kit.edu/130.php#Anker0
https://pos.sissa.it/431/011/pdf

"Currently the combined analysis for measurement campaigns one to five is ongoing with an expected sensitivity of ∼ 0.5 eV."

But it seems that value 0,75 eV is a new one?
"The KATRIN collaboration has determined a neutrino mass limit in the sub-eV range. This is the current world-best limit from direct single β-decay measurements at 𝑚_𝜈 < 0.75 eV (90 % CL)"
 
  • #75
So, we have two possibilities.

(A) The KATRIN experiment has chosen to update its results by presenting them at an obscure conference, with absolutely no explanation of what has changed. Indeed, the citation is to the older number.

(B) Some who gave the talk rounded a number differently in their presentation.

And you are asking us to go with Option A.
 
  • #76
Vanadium 50 said:
So, we have two possibilities.

(A) The KATRIN experiment has chosen to update its results by presenting them at an obscure conference, with absolutely no explanation of what has changed. Indeed, the citation is to the older number.

(B) Some who gave the talk rounded a number differently in their presentation.

And you are asking us to go with Option A.
Yes, in principle, we are waiting for ∼ 0.5 eV. It was predicted at the end of the year 2023. But here, this prediction was repeated; maybe the update is close.

About 0,75 eV: I do not understand, but it is not as important as 0.5 eV. But I hope that this is more than rounding...
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #77
Vanadium 50 said:
And you are asking us to go with Option A.
exponent137 said:
Yes,
Wow. Just wow.
 
  • #78
FWIW, "The KATRIN experiment has chosen to update its results by presenting them at an obscure conference"

I have no idea about this particular case, but this is often how new results are first spread, with publication following due to more rigorous publication than conference paper standards.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy and exponent137
  • #79
No they do not. They may announce preliminary results, but they are subject to change until submission to a journal, refereeing and publication.

They never, despite the claims of some non-physicists, release a result by putting a new number in the proceedings of an obscure conference, do not explain what has changed, and then cite the old published results.

Once again, wow.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy, PeterDonis and berkeman
  • #80
* The finished analysis sets an upper limit of 0.75 eV.
* The ongoing analysis expects to set an upper limit of around 0.5 eV (assuming no signal), but the precise number will only be known once the analysis is done.

What's unclear?

The result of the ongoing analysis will be shown at a major conference and with a corresponding paper draft.
 
  • #81
mfb said:
What's unclear?
The actual published paper rounds to 0.8 eV.

(It's more complicated than this, as the paper publishes multiple statistical procedures to indicate that no matter which one you pick, you get a similar number - which is useful information)
 
  • #82
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #83
exponent137 said:
And the next data release happened, half a year later after it was promised:
The fiends! Imagine the chutzpah of waiting until the analysis was complete before going public with it! The nerve! What kind of scientists are they?

I wonder if they can be criminally charged with waiting until they were sure of a result rather than publishing something fishy on your preferred schedule. Hang 'em high! Stake them to anthills!
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Likes berkeman
  • #84
Vanadium 50 said:
I wonder if they can be criminally charged with waiting until they were sure of a result rather than publishing something fish on your preferred schedule. Hang 'em high! Stake them to anthills!
I thought nothing negative with this sentence. Only for evidence, I gave 1/2 year. It is a natural law, it seems.

It was one post one year ago when someone explicitly criticized such delay. I did not.
 
  • #85
exponent137 said:
And the next data release happened, half a year later after it was promised:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.13516
The new upper bound is mν<0.45 eV.
Was this paper the first announcement?
This pushes the limit on the sum of the three neutrino masses to 1.41 eV in a normal hierarchy and 1.46 eV in an inverted hierarchy, when considered together with neutrino oscillation observations.

After a full run of data collection, KATRIN is expected to lower that bound to 0.2 eV. This would push the limit on the sum of the three neutrino masses to 0.66 eV in a normal hierarchy and 0.71 eV in an inverted hierarchy. This still isn't nearly as tight as the cosmology based bounds, but is much less model dependent and is still of the same order of magnitude.

The best take on the cosmology bound in light of DESI is that:
Cosmological neutrino mass bounds are becoming increasingly stringent. The latest limit within ΛCDM from Planck 2018+ACT lensing+DESI is ∑mν < 0.072eV at 95% CL, very close to the minimum possible sum of neutrino masses (∑mν > 0.06eV), hinting at vanishing or even ''negative'' cosmological neutrino masses.
In this context, it is urgent to carefully evaluate the origin of these cosmological constraints. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of these results in three ways: i) we check the role of potential anomalies in Planck CMB and DESI BAO data; ii) we compare the results for frequentist and Bayesian techniques, as very close to physical boundaries subtleties in the derivation and interpretation of constraints can arise; iii) we investigate how deviations from ΛCDM, potentially alleviating these anomalies, can alter the constraints.
From a profile likelihood analysis, we derive constraints in agreement at the ∼10% level with Bayesian posteriors. We find that the weak preference for negative neutrino masses is mostly present for Planck 18 data, affected by the well-known "lensing anomaly". It disappears when the new Planck 2020 HiLLiPoP is used, leading to significantly weaker constraints. Additionally, the pull towards negative masses in DESI data stems from the z=0.7 bin, which is in ∼3σ tension with Planck expectations. Without these outliers, and in combination with HiLLiPoP, the bound relaxes to ∑mν<0.11eV at 95% CL. The recent preference for dynamical dark energy alleviates this tension and further weakens the bound. As we are at the dawn of a neutrino mass discovery from cosmology, it will be very exciting to see if this trend is confirmed by future data.
Daniel Naredo-Tuero, et al., "Living at the Edge: A Critical Look at the Cosmological Neutrino Mass Bound" arXiv:2407.13831 (July 18, 2024).
 
  • Like
Likes exponent137
  • #86
Thanks for the links will prove useful at several Breit Wigner cross sections I'm currently looking into
 

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top