So when did people start to suspect that the neutrino had mass?

arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,481
Reaction score
187
Looking at Nucl.Phys. B194 (1982) 422 I read

"In 1972 there were two neutrinos and they were
both massless. Today we have three and perhaps all of them have
mass.
"

Hey, 1981 and neutrinos have mass? I was not even in the university. And in all the textbooks the neutrino was massless. So how is that they (Bardeen et al) at the Fermilab had already decided that at least some of them were massive?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Physics news on Phys.org
http://www.pd.infn.it/~laveder/unbo..._oscillations-nobel-simposium-19-aug-2004.pdf

The theories were first starting be built from the 50-60's, with the 70-80's being the best [IMO]...

I think most of textbooks would avoid talking about massive neutrinos except for if they were specialized in those kind of theories (as theories). It wasn't until 1998 when this was finally observed in SuperKamiokande.
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/neutrino/PhysicsWorld.pdf

So I guess that's the reason your quote says "perhaps all of them have mass"
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
The idea of a massive neutrino goes back to the 1930 Pauli letter postulating it: "Groessenordnung wie die
Elektronenmasse sein und jedenfalls nicht grosser als 0,01 Protonenmasse" - of order the electron mass and in any event less than 1% of the proton mass.
 
ChrisVer said:
So I guess that's the reason your quote says "perhaps all of them have mass"


Well, I read the "perhaps" as meaning that oscillations do not require mass for all of them.

The slides are very interesting, thanks for pointing them out!
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
Thread 'Why is there such a difference between the total cross-section data? (simulation vs. experiment)'
Well, I'm simulating a neutron-proton scattering phase shift. The equation that I solve numerically is the Phase function method and is $$ \frac{d}{dr}[\delta_{i+1}] = \frac{2\mu}{\hbar^2}\frac{V(r)}{k^2}\sin(kr + \delta_i)$$ ##\delta_i## is the phase shift for triplet and singlet state, ##\mu## is the reduced mass for neutron-proton, ##k=\sqrt{2\mu E_{cm}/\hbar^2}## is the wave number and ##V(r)## is the potential of interaction like Yukawa, Wood-Saxon, Square well potential, etc. I first...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top