Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Toward a Kinematically Correct Theory of Neutrino Flavor Oscillations

Toward a Kinematically Correct Theory of Neutrino Flavor Oscillations

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33|Likes:
Neutrino flavor oscillations can be explained kinematically by neutrino substructure.
Neutrino flavor oscillations can be explained kinematically by neutrino substructure.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: John Michael Williams on Feb 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/17/2013

pdf

 
Toward a Kinematically Correct Theoryof Neutrino Flavor Oscillations
*
By
John Michael Williams
jmmwill@comcast.net
2011-03-07Neutrino flavor oscillations can be explained kinematically by neutrino substructure.
Copyright © 2002, 2011, John Michael Williams. All Rights Reserved.
*
The original v. 0.15 of this paper was made available in 2002 as CERN-EXT-2002-063. poster session based on the preprint was given Tuesday, 2002-08-13, at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Thirtieth Summer Institute (
SSI-30 
),
Secrets of the B Meson
.The present v. 1.0 is slightly changed from v. 0.16 of 2002; the data are out of date as of 2011.The LSND experiment has been superceded by MiniBOONE, possibly making the postulatedquirk radius expansion unnecessary to explain the data.
 
J. M. Williams Neutrino Substructure v. 1.0 2
 Abstract
 Assuming neutrinos have a flavor-independent and small but nonzero rest mass,flavor oscillations can be demonstrated which fit the known data without violatingany physical law.We require that the neutrino have observable substructure and an effective size, inat least one dimension, expanding after creation to exceed the range of the weakforce. Thus, neutrinos are made truly analogous to kaons.
 Assumptions
1.
Neutrinos can oscillate
, in the sense that they can change predominant flavor of interaction as a function of propagation distance (or, propagation proper time).Credibility: Recent experimental data at K2K, and observation at Super-K, SNO, andearlier facilities support this assumption. A confirmed appearance experiment atMiniBOONE [8], similar to that of LSND, appears to close the door onalternatives.2.
There are three flavors of neutrino
: electron, muon, and tauon.Credibility: Three flavors have been observed, and
boson decay implies that no morethan three light neutrinos can exist. Analogy with the Standard Model quarksand charged leptons suggests three flavors.3.
The rest energy of all neutrinos is very small
. By small, we mean of the order of 
mc
2
= 1 eV or less.Credibility: Supernova and experimental data strongly support this assumption.4.
Every neutrino is the source of a structured field which oscillates
. This fieldmaintains an energy substructure or process of unspecified kind which evolves inproper time and causes flavor oscillation, when such is observed. Thus, the massstate and flavor state of a neutrino are not coupled.Credibility: Speculative. The assumption that such a field might be the cause of flavor oscillations is the primary basis for the present theory. Leptonsubstructure has been suggested by Calmet, et al [5].5.
 All neutrinos have the same nonzero expectancy of rest energy
. This isconvenient but not necessary to our theory.Credibility: Hypothetical. Oscillations support this assumption by excluding masshierarchy by flavor ([1], sect. 4.3;
cf 
. [2]), but oscillations do not prove that initialinteractions by flavor all yield the same rest energy.
 
J. M. Williams Neutrino Substructure v. 1.1 3
General Constraints on Observability
To examine the observability of substructure internal to the neutrino, we initially takethe spatial domain of any such substructure to be the range
of the weak force in therest frame of a freely propagating neutrino. We take
 
10
-17
m here, using the Comptonwavelength of a W boson at rest as a somewhat arbitrary estimate.In MKS units, then, from Heisenberg's principle, an observable internal momentumdifference
 p
then must be such that,
Δ
 p
2
Δ
10
34
2
ρ
Δ
p
5
10
16
kg 
m
s
1
.(2.1) Any change must propagate across a region this size in time
t
given by,
Δ
t
ρ
c
10
17
3
10
8
Δ
t
3
10
26
s.
(2.2)Consider a free particle which we would hope to use to probe spatial energy differencesin a region with extent equal to
. For a massless particle, the energy associated withthe momentum observable in (2.1) would be,
=
 pc
; so, from (2.1),
Δ
=
Δ
pc
1.5
10
7
Δ
10
12
eV.
(2.3)Hence, observation of a real, massless particle to measure spatial energy differenceswithin a region known to be the range of the weak force is not possible for a neutrinointeraction of less than about 1 TeV. For a massive particle of known rest energy ~10 eV
10
-18
joule, which is a generous upper bound on the rest energy of the electron neutrino,the result in (2.3) is unaltered for any practical purpose. This result holds for colliderexperiments designed to probe substructure.But, from Heisenberg's principle, in general,
Δ
2
Δ
t
.(2.4)The time, and hence its uncertainty, may be arbitrarily large, for example, decay timeof an unstable state, making a
observable during that time arbitrarily small. So,
there is no essential lower limit on an observable change or difference in
because of a process local to the particle of interest, provided the observation be madeover an arbitrary time, long compared with the time in (2.2) in some specific frame of reference. This is the same argument as in the usual oscillation theories, the time beingtime in propagation.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->