Will MiniBooNE's Findings Impact Future Neutrino Experiments?

[marcus]

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=Livestreams.fp5&-format=v2/000Return/video/live.htm&enable=yes&-sortfield=EventStart_Date&-sortorder=ascend&-sortfield=EventStart_Time&-sortorder=ascend&-error=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.

 

[marcus]

Two more links:
http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1025099

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/BooNE-box.html

 

[jal]

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

 

[Kea]

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.

 

[jal]

Try this link.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/MiniBooNE/070411Live/index.htm

 

[marcus]

the best explanation for general audience that I have seen is by Heather Ray.
constributed to the C.V. blog.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/11/miniboone-neutrino-result-guest-blog-from-heather-ray/
Thanks to Peter Woit for calling attention to this excellent long piece by Heather.

 

[jal]

Great explanation.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/11/miniboone-neutrino-result-guest-blog-from-heather-ray/

"... excess of events in the low energy region..."
This where the "polishing is happening?
What are the possible options?
jal

 

[Kea]

What are the possible options?

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.

 

[CarlB]

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.

 

[Kea]

Kea, if the LSND results had been verified, I'd have been in a little trouble.

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.

 

[Kea]

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.

 

[jal]

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

 

[marcus]

I read that neutral ...

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.

the best explanation for general audience that I have seen is by Heather Ray.
constributed to the C.V. blog.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/04/11/miniboone-neutrino-result-guest-blog-from-heather-ray/
Thanks to Peter Woit for calling attention to this excellent long piece by Heather.

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.

 

[jal]

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

 

[Kea]

Matti Pitkanen has a good post at

http://matpitka.blogspot.com/2007/04/lsnd-and-miniboone-are-consistent-in.html#comments

explaining how both LSND and MiniBooNE results can be viewed as consistent, if one appreciates that the effective E range for LSND was very low.

 

[jal]

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

 

[Kea]

I hope someone coordinate the birth of this baby elephant because S-he will be a real S-hape-S-hifter.

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

 

[CarlB]

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.

Hmmm. I wonder if this has something to do with Lorentz violation.

 

[marcus]

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