## Saturday, August 27, 2011

### MINOS Update

The MINOS experiment claims to have lessened the significance of the neutrino and antineutrino mass difference. However, we know that they cannot dismiss their previous results so easily. They claim now that the $\Delta m^2$ for antineutrinos is

$2.62 + 0.31 - 0.28 \pm 0.09 \times 10^{-3}$ $\textrm{eV}^2$

which is much closer to the neutrino result. In fact, they claim to have excluded the $3.39$ value favoured by Koide phase conjugation (but only under an assumption on $\sin^2 2 \theta$ which disagrees with our hypothesis).

But wait a minute, you say. Are they actually doing the same experiment? In this experiment they are using the antineutrino component of the neutrino beam. This is an entirely different thing from looking at an antineutrino beam. Nomenclature, nomenclature! Why can't we just stick to mirror neutrinos for the true so called antineutrino beam! The new experiment actually looks at antineutrinos!

Update: It has been pointed out to me that some of the new data is in fact from the antineutrino beam. Will have to read some more ...

1. Note that our Koide model actually predicted this anomalous result, because they do not observe mirror neutrinos. They are doing a different experiment, looking at $\overline{\nu}$ in the neutrino beam. I'll have to look more closely at the beam generation, and think about this ...

2. Note also that even if they are observing true mirror neutrinos, the data do not point to the standard expectation. On the contrary, the data seem to be narrowing in on the preferred value above $0.003$, away from $\sin^2 2 \theta = 1$. The paper is far too biased.

3. As Graham points out, we have some truly dreadful cases of flat-earth thinking, such as this quote:

“The previous results left a 2 percent chance that the neutrino and antineutrino masses were the same. This disagrees with what theories of how neutrinos operate predicted,” Thomas said. “So, we have spent almost a year looking for some instrumental effect that could have caused the difference. It is comforting to know that statistics were the culprit.”

4. OMG, so we probably have to wait DECADES before an experiment comes along that is actually capable of taking its data seriously ...

5. This old result is the one everyone should be looking at.

6. Re the beam: the best conclusion is probably that they are looking at a mixture of antineutrinos and mirror neutrinos, which is why their $\Delta m^2$ sits in between the two correct values. The source of anomalous particles in the neutrino beam looks messy, and I would need help from an experimenter to understand it better. Yeah, like I'm going to get that.