Dear Hans,

you say "There are no direct observations of neutrinos or neutrino oscillations. All observations regarding this can be declared otherwise.".

This statement si incorrect, because the KamLAND experiment has measured the key signature of neutrino oscillations, the so-called L/E-pattern, back in 2004. It is true that the experiments that received the Nobel prize this year did not by themselves verify that, which is why many researchers have the opinion that this year's Nobel prize was not directly given to the discovery of neutrino "oscillations" (rather to flavour change).

Nevertheless, neutrino oscillations have undoubtedly been observed, will all non-oscillation alternatives clearly strongly disfavoured by data.

Best regards,

Alexander

PS: In fact, all particles do oscillate if produced with similar QM-uncertainties as neutrinos. The only difference is that the masses of other particles are *much* bigger, which also makes the oscilaltion frequencies much higher and thus unobservable. Again I am wondering where the statement that other particles do not oscillate comes from. I am happy to dig out the publications which show that in detail, if you're prepared to question your current opinion.

Dear Hans,

your question aims to relate stability of neutrinos to their companion leptons ... This is surely an interesting question !

However, from recent experiments it results that neutrinos are not stable particles ... In fact so-called 'neutrino oscillation' can be interpreted just as a particular unstability ... Let me underline that such behaviour has been instead considered as a contradiction for the Standard Model, where neutrinos are considered without mass. On the other hand I proved in my quantum gravity theory, that quantum particles acquire mass-gap when interact with matter. This is just what happen with neutrinos. In other words, neutrino oscillation is not a sufficient reason to state that Standard Model must be corrected by considering massive neutrinos. The Standard Model is surely not an exhaustive model for the quantum world, but for many other reasons that it is useless to recall here again. Let me, instead, to remark that the concept of stability, cannot be considered unrelated to some dynamical context. Therefore, neutrino oscillation can be considered a particular unstability for free-mass leptons interacting with matter.

My best regards,

Agostino

Hello Agostino!

Thanks for your answer. There are many contradictions in connection with "neutrinos".

Almost all particles are unstable. It's a bold claim in theory to say: The neutrino is stable because it must be stable.

What happens when "neutrino" and "anti-neutrino" are clashing?

With best wishes

Hans

Dear Hans,

I cannot see any contradiction in my post ! In fact I never claimed:

'The neutrino is stable because it must be stable.'

I am sure that whether you read more carefully my work you can understand that there is no contradiction therein.

All the best,

Agostino

Dear Agostino!

There is a misunderstanding. I shuold formulate my answer more detailed. Your reference to the "neutrino"-oscillation is absolute right. But this means only another kind of stability and it is like the "neutrino" itsef a theoretical invention to explain observations without accurate knowledge.

The reality don't need "neutrinos". All particles and nuclei have a various inert energy. Therefore emitted particles receive during the decay different amounts of energy, visible by β-spectrum. Also α-particles showing a spectrum but its much less pronounced because their mass is about 7500times bigger than the electron-mass. Hence nobody invented an "α-trino". The various inert energy of the particles and nuclei leads sometimes to reverse decays. This is the cause of chemical "neutrino"-evidences (GALLEX, some Homstake-experiments, OPERA, ...).

This is my point of view and i think it's closer to the reality as current theories.

I wish you a good weekend!

Hans

Dear Hans,

whether I well understood your point of view, you state that neutrinos do not exist ! This opinion is surely outside the usual accepted point of view !

From my point of view, namely inside my quantum gravity theory, this should have the effect to transfer quantum energy contribution to the boundary of nonlinear quantum propagators encoding quantum reactions where neutrinos are eliminated. In other words such quantum reactions (without neutrinos) should be yet possible ...

Therefore, to accept neutrinos as real particles is not, from my point of view, a necessity to satisfy right quantum energy balances, but has its origin inside the Standard Model. Even if I consider SM a first approximation only, it is worth to extend this model by preserving what of good it has proved to have until now ... Serious science must adopt, step by step, more general mathematical models, enclosing previous ones as particular cases. Therefore I do not consider a serious approach to claim:  SM is wrong !  Instead it is right to claim: SM is not the last stone in the long road of the Science !

All the best,

Agostino 

Dear Agostino!

I am well aware about my point of view. But there are too many facts which speak against "neutrinos". I have stated some of it above. Some more see below:

- There would be a "neutrino"-ether with increasing density. Was Michelson wrong?

- There would enrgy resp. mass steady flow off in a theoretical side room of physics with no return.

- What were showing the blind experiments by OPERA, IKARUS etc?

- and many other contradictions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279963956_Theory_and_reality_on_the_experiment_of_ReinesCowan_1956?ev=prf_pub

The experimenters should search for the real causes of the "neutrino"-experiments and do not stay in old theories.

Best Regards!

Hans

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

Dear Hans,

you are right ! There is not a direct proof for neutrino existence. But this is an old story, since these particles are neutral and without mass. (Even if when they interact with matter acquire a very little mass ...) But in particle physics there are also other similar situations ... for example gluons.

As I said in my previous post, the actual motivation to belief in the existence of neutrinos is SM.

I cannot exclude nothing for possible future developments on this side ... however, the actual experiments appear to support their existence (even if indirectly proved ...)

All the best,

Agostino

Dear Agostino,

different positions are leading to interesting discussions. You can standardise the own points of view and you can also learn to understand other opinions. I agree with your point of view but on certain issues I have other thoughts.

Gluons and neutrinos are comparable particles: Both of them are invented by theory. The "quarks" which were leading to the gluons are unproven and also theoreticl invented. I remind the LHC-experiment.

You said: SM is not the last stone in the long road of the Science! I agree.

All the best,

Hans

Neutrinos are stable because there don't exist any lighter particles, to which they could decay, that carry the appropriate charges. Neutrinos, when interacting with antineutrinos, give rise to pairs of other particle/antiparticle pairs, e.g. to electron-positron pairs. This is, however, assuming that antineutrinos are distinct particles from neutrinos; else if they're their own antiparticles, i.e.  they're Majorana particles, there isn't any annihilation possible, just neutrino-neutrino interactions.

Hi everybody,

I am afraid that many of these posts are mixing up things a little bit. Let me clear up the smoke.

First, electron-, muon-, and tau-neutrinos are *flavour* eigenstates. Thus, they do not have a well-defined mass and in particular there is no way to say the electron-neutrino with be the "lightest".

Instead, the neutrino states mentioned above are quantum mechanical superpositions of three neutrino mass eigenstates typically called 1, 2, and 3 with well-defined masses m_1, m_2, m_3. We don't know which is the largest of those, but we do know that m_2>m_1.

Now, in principle all "heavier" neutrinos could decay into the lighter ones plus one photon, e.g. nu_2 -> nu_1 + gamma. There is no charge which would prevent that decay, it is energetically allowed, and one can draw a corresponding (1-loop) Feynman diagram.

Thus, the two "heavier" neutrinos, nu_2 and nu_3 if m_1 < m_2 < m_3 or nu_1 and nu_2 if m_3 < m_1 < m_2, are unstable. That's it.

It's on fact quite simple and can be found in any good neutrino review, which is why I am truly wondering where unsolicited statements like "Neutrinos are stable because there don't exist any lighter particles" come from.

It would be better if answers to questions here in RG are provided by experts in the respective field only (identifiable e.g. by their publication list or by their skills being endorsed by other RG members), since a multitude of incorrect answers to a question posed do not lead to anything but confusion.

Best regards,

Alexander

Neutrino oscillations aren't decays, that's why they're called the former and not the latter. The oscillations, simply,  mix the neutrinos: all mass eigenstates are superpositions of all flavor eigenstates-the ``lightest'' mass eigenstate, in particular,  is a superposition of all flavor eigenstates, that's why the terms decay or stability don't make sense. 

A single neutrino, that has spin 1/2 and is the lightest mass eigenstate,  can't decay, i.e. transform into  anything else that's known, that's not a neutrino, because photons have spin 1. So there will always be a neutrino in the final state. Hence, neutrinos are stable, until lighter, spin 1/2, particles are discovered, that can interact with them-which will then be stable. 

No Stam,

what you claim is not completely exact ! Massive neutrinos can decay in mass-free neutrinos going outside the Higgs sub-equation of the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs. This is proved in my quantum gravity theory. The 2015 Nobel prize assigned to physicists recognizing neutrino oscillation, really confirms my theory and indirectly SM too.

All the best,

Agostino

- There are no direct observations of neutrinos or neutrino oscillations. All observations regarding this can be declared otherwise.

- The neutrino oscillation was invented after a significant difference of solar-neutrinos, observed in experiments like GALLEX. Previously was no prediction of this oscillation. If oscillation is real, why should only neutrinos oscillate and other particles not?

- Alfred Wegener was about 100 years ago not a recognised expert, but his answers were right. We don't need muzzles in science.

Neutrino oscillations were described, already,  in 1957 by Pontecorvo,  cf. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.1657.pdf for a recent review. However, until 1995 there were no indications of such oscillations. A summary is here: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2015/advanced-physicsprize2015.pdf but there have been further  measurements of neutrino flavor oscillations, most recently in China, http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03456

Oscillation requires a discrete quantum number and does imply that the fermions are massive-but massive fermions, that do carry a discrete label, need not display oscillations in the label-individual lepton numbers were found to be conserved in processes involving charged leptons, to date.   So the detection of neutrino oscillations implies that they are massive, not the other way around.  While electrons and muons and taus *could* display flavor oscillations, to date such oscillations have not been discovered. Nothing forbids them from occurring and the discovery of neutrino oscillations is a motivation for searching for them more closely; just that they must be very rare. There's an experiment planned for measuring the process μ->eγ, http://mu2e.fnal.gov/ This is, of course, extremely difficult, since one must eliminate the ``background'',  coming from the, expected,  process, where a muon-neutrino and an electron-antineutrino do contribute to the final state, thereby preserving individual lepton number. 

While neutrino oscillations can only provide values for the differences between the mass (squared) of the neutrino flavors, cosmological measurements can provide bounds on the total mass over the neutrino flavors, that are much more constraining, than from current particle data: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065002/pdf

Dear Hans,

you say "There are no direct observations of neutrinos or neutrino oscillations. All observations regarding this can be declared otherwise.".

This statement si incorrect, because the KamLAND experiment has measured the key signature of neutrino oscillations, the so-called L/E-pattern, back in 2004. It is true that the experiments that received the Nobel prize this year did not by themselves verify that, which is why many researchers have the opinion that this year's Nobel prize was not directly given to the discovery of neutrino "oscillations" (rather to flavour change).

Nevertheless, neutrino oscillations have undoubtedly been observed, will all non-oscillation alternatives clearly strongly disfavoured by data.

Best regards,

Alexander

PS: In fact, all particles do oscillate if produced with similar QM-uncertainties as neutrinos. The only difference is that the masses of other particles are *much* bigger, which also makes the oscilaltion frequencies much higher and thus unobservable. Again I am wondering where the statement that other particles do not oscillate comes from. I am happy to dig out the publications which show that in detail, if you're prepared to question your current opinion.

Flavor oscillations are independent of the usual exp(iωt) dependence of individual states. In the charged lepton sector the individual lepton numbers are found, to date, to be  conserved, so the process μ->eγ hasn't been observed, for instance. Since individual lepton number has been found to be not conserved in neutrinos, however-that's what neutrino oscillations mean-it's interesting to find whether it may, also, be not conserved, finally, in charged lepton processes. However, while the discovery of neutrino oscillations does imply that they're massive (since they can't all have the same mass that, up to then, had been thought to vanish), the fact that the charged leptons are massive (more precisely don't all  have the same mass), doesn't imply that they show flavor oscillations: in muon decay, μ->e(νμ)(νebar), there isn't a muon in the final state, that's why it's called a decay: the mass eigenstates of muons and electrons in this process can't be written as superpositions of flavor eigenstates, to date, whereas the flavor eigenstates of neutrinos in the final state can be written as superpositions of mass eigenstates, it has now been discovered. Flavor superpositions of muons and electrons haven't been observed, to date. Of course the Standard Model is unitary, so the process 

e+v_ebar + v_mu -> mu can occur; but this isn't an oscillation, as long as mass eigenstates aren't linear combination of flavor eigenstates and vice versa, with a matrix that's not the identity. 

The flavor mixing matrix is, to date, the identity in the charged lepton sector and the PMNS matrix in the neutrino sector. 

It isn't the frequency that makes  observation of the interference effects difficult-there have been observations of interference effects with cold atoms; it's, precisely, the extremely short lifetime of the muon and the tau-they transform very rapidly to particles that, up to now, do not seem to show that they are in  superpositions with them. That's the topic of the experiment in Fermilab. 

Indeed, since the masses and, thus,  the differences of the squared masses of the charged leptons are known, it's possible to deduce the corresponding oscillation lengths, which is the idea behind the Fermilab experiment and others and check tha flavor oscillations, do (or don't)  in fact, occur.

Dear Stam,

you can find a lot of information in an article by Akhmedov: http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.1216

As I had pointed out before, indeed one reason that charged lepton oscillations are not visible is that we do not easily produce them in superpositions. That's right. But the point is that, even if we could produce them that way, the oscillations would average out very quickly.

The ordinary muon decay "counter example" you are mentioning would not show such a QM-superposition as needed because the initial muon is a mass eigenstate. Also neutrinos would not oscillate if we produced them in a precise mass eigenstate or if after some long propoagation they arrive at Earth as mass eigenstates (this is in particular true for supernova neutrinos, and fully consistent with the measurements of SN1987A). See the paper linked above for details.

In fact what you say about not observing mu -> e gamma does not imply that charged lepton flavour is conserved. On the contrary, we know it's not conserved precisely because neutrinos are massive. It is just that the corresponding decay rate of mu -> e gamma is extremely tiny (unless further new physics exists). The reason is that it is strongly suppressed by a mechanism which is called "GIM" (Glashow-Illopoulos-Maiani). A nice explantion can be found in the textbook by Cheng & Li, Chapter 13.3.

What you say about leptonic mixing is also not very precise, I'm afraid. In our formalism we simply use the charged lepton mass eigenbasis because we have already measured the charged lepton masses. If we want to any other basis, physics would however not change. It's the same for quarks, where we use the mass basis of the up-like quarks - but physics would not be different if we used the down-like quark mass basis.

The physics is contained in the *mismatch* between the charged lepton and neutrino mass eigenbases. It is an incorrect conception that neutrinos would mix and charged leptons do not, because it is basis-dependent. In the neutrino mass basis, they would be pure states, while the charged leptons would be mixtures. But a choice of basis does not influence the actual physics.

Once again, I am happy to supply you with good references.

Regards,

Alexander

The point isn't that the muon is a mass eigenstate-of course it is; the point is whether it's a superposition of flavor eigenstates-and that's not known-it must be determined. From knowledge of the mass differences of the charged leptons, it's possible to compute the oscillation length and then observe, whether muon eigenstates are, indeed, transformed into electron eigenstates or tau eigenstates. That neutrinos oscillate that way doesn't imply, necessarily, that charged leptons do-nor does it constrain the entries of the mixing matrix in any meaningful way--it could remain, like it's up to now known to be, very close, in practice,  to the identity matrix, which would mean that one  can call the transformation of the muon to electron and neutrinos a decay, since one can't, in practice, observe the reverse reaction. But it may be that one can, one just hasn't looked properly.

Whether there is an analog of the GIM mechanism for leptons, like there is for quarks, is not at all obvious, precisely because the mixing matrix for the charged leptons isn't known. 

None of the statements here, or in previous messages, rely on any particular basis, so it's useful to actually read the messages and avoid any appeals to authority. The discussion doesn't make sense without background knowledge of the Standard Model, so it's useful to get to the point one wishes to make. There would be physical consequences if the flavor mixing matrix of the charged leptons turns out to be measurably different from the identity. And the unitarity of the PMNS matrix, just like the unitarity of the CKM matrix, does provide the background for searching for new particles, both experimentally and theoretically from lattice calculations in QCD for the CKM matrix and, hopefully, for the PMNS, now that domain wall fermions are being used more and more. 

All this, of course, is just background material and not directly relevant to the stability of neutrinos, in the conventional sense,  that is just the consequence of the observed flavor oscillations, that they have spin 1/2 and that there don't exist, as far as is known today,  any particles, of spin 1/2, that are lighter. (The qualification ``conventional'' means that the unitarity of the Standard Model, of course, implies that, in principle, the reverse process is, also, possible.) So it's not possible, starting with a neutrino in the initial state, to end up with particles that don't include neutrinos in the final state. Whereas, as far as is known, to date, it is possible to start with a muon in the initial state and obtain a final state that has negligible, for the moment, zero, overlap with a muon. 

Sorry, but I am interesting in continuing this discussion, because you are repeating arguments that contradict the state of the art in particle physics.

For example, the muon is a flavour eigenstate by definition, because we define flavour by the known charged leptons. And the question of oscillations is only related to whether or not certain QM-uncertainties are present in the production and detection of the states.

Most of the points you are questioning have been clear for years, see Beuthe's old review for a detailed discussion: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157302005380

Other works useful in that respect are several papers by Carlo Guinti and collaborators.

Regards,

Alexander

Dear Alexander!

"... the muon is a flavour eigenstate by definition ... " This means, the theory defined the reality. Every religion argues just the same.

If you say: The muon is an exited electron (and also the tauon), I will agree. You are probable one of the many old theoreticians who not realise, that knowledge is constant further development.

Regards

Hans

As far as neutrino oscillations are concerned the neutrino will have a very high relativistic mass due to its very high velocity. Thus it will be easily able to oscillate between the masses of the muon neutrino and the tau neutrino which have greater masses than the neutrino itself.

The electron has relatively low velocity in most systems, as such the  muon and tauon become merely resonances of the stable electron and by definition unstable.

By the way most particle masses can be derived form the electron mass.

Article Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the charge and m...

Dear Hans,

no, this precisely not the case. You have to be very careful to disentangle definitions of how reality should be (as in many religions) or definitions of a certain convention we use for one reason or the other to compute things.

As I had already pointed out, physics is independent of the choice of basis. Our flavour basis is chosen to coincide with the electron, the muon, and the tau because it is convenient to do so. Simply because these states have a well-defined mass.

However, we could choose any other basis without changing any experimental result. Many alternative choices may be less convenient, in the sense that the computations we do would be more complicated, but Nature does not care about such things.

My honest opinion is that, before making claims so profound as yours, I would suggest you study the topic for  few years, you do get through referee processes, you do give talks and face criticism by colleagues, and so on. This helps to scrutinise your thoughts.

What you are stating does contradict both our current theoretical understanding (e.g. not being very clear about the distinction between a simple change of basis versus a definition on how Nature should be, which is what scientists avoid in general) AND even some experimental results (e.g. ignoring KamLAND completely).

The mere fact that you are picking out one of my statements and re-interpret it the way you think it was meant reveals that you are judging from your personal opinion, not from objective facts as given to us by experiments.

This is not a scientific approach, and unless you try to pursue answering questions using the scientific method only, don't expect active researchers in the field who really do know the current state-of-the-art to listen.

You are of course entitled to any opinion you would like to have, but you must also accept that your opinion will be criticised based on scientific evidence. You can of course choose to repeat your opinion, but my advice would be to instead study the actual scientific works behind the statements that scientists give.

Regards,

Alexander

PS: I don't think I am that old... no offense, but at least comparing our pictures I look considerably younger. In any case, you have once more shown to argue emotionally instead of relying on arguments. Unless you prove to be able to discuss arguments on a neutral basis, I don't see any progress in this discussion.

All neotrino-experiments have proven that absolute stability do not exist. One cause of this instability are the solar and cosmic radiation (including the particle radiation!). The radiation triggered many processes not only in the upper atmosphere. This processes and the follow-up processes achieve surface of the earth, deeper stone layers, antarctic ice masses, the water of the Lake Baikal etc. The high energetic radiation of a solar eruption or supernova is indirect demonstrable in a mine or an ice cube.

The second cause of instability are the reverse decays of atomic nuclei. To declare the reverse decays you can use "neutrinos" like the current theory does or you can search for the real causes.

The current neutrino-physics is trying to unify all the different obsevations of "neutrinos"  in one theoretical-mathematical model. Contradictions are leading to additional hypotheses like "neutrino osscillation". Nobody knows the next contradiction and also the next additional hypothesis.

The real cause of reverse decays is a different internal energy of atomic nuclei. This means, the nuclei have not nearly the same energy but they have a spectral distribution of internal energy. If you observe a high amount of nuclei (for example 30t gallium = 2,6x10E30 ga-nuclei) sometimes one of the nuclei reached such a high internal energy that it decayed reverse according to:  31-Ga-71  ↔  32-Ge-71  +  e−   The lower the difference of nuclear binding energy between the neighbouring nuclei, the more often you can observe such reverse decays.

In case of the decay:   5-B-10   ↔   4-Be-10  +  e+   is clearly evident that such reverse decays are caused by energy and not by "neutrinos". This process started after the deglaciation about 11000 years ago. It is used to determine time of archaeological samples.

If the GaCl3-solution by GALLEX were heated up to 70 degree celsius or irradiated with intense light or γ-radiation, maybe the "neutrino-oscillation" wuold never been "invented". But such small details are unimportant in a great science.

No, certain neutrino experiments have shown (not ``proven'') that neutrinos, defined as states of definite mass and spin (the invariants of the Poincaré group, that allow to define what a particle is at all), possess properties, called ``flavors'',  that are not preserved by the weak interactions, as was assumed. This fact can be seen to imply  that they can't all have the same mass and measurements of the mixing angles imply that none can be massless, while cosmological measurements, that can measure the total mass, imply that this is very small, the smallest mass scale available.  It's an additional fact that, up to now, no other leptons are known, with spin 1/2 and mass less than the lightest neutrino mass eigenstate. Therefore it's impossible, starting with a neutrino in the initial state, to end up without a neutrino in any final state, since that would violate angular momentum conservation. 

31_Ga_71 -> 32_Ge_71 + e- is impossible since it violates, at least, lepton number conservation; the final state has an electron, that has  lepton number = 1 and the initial state has lepton number = 0. That's the most obvious feature. Closer look shows that angular momentum isn't conserved, nor is energy and momentum conserved. That's how the presence of the (anti)neutrino was deduced in the first place. Same remarks apply to the boron-beryllium reaction: lepton number isn't conserved in the reaction, as written. These statements don't have anything to do with any oscillation, they refer to global lepton number conservation, which, even in the presence of flavor oscillations, is conserved, just like baryon number is conserved, despite flavor oscillations of quarks in weak interactions. 

Photons have zero lepton number, therefore their presence can't compensate the absence of the neutrino. 

While the Standard Model can describe certain classes of processes that do not conserve baryon or lepton number separately, but certain combinations thereof, these processes aren't necessary for the consistency of the model and, since they're very hard to measure, haven't been measured to discovery precision, to date. 

Dear Stam!

"neutrinos, defined as states of definite mass and spin"; "...lepton number conservation;..."; "That's how the presence of the (anti)neutrino was deduced..."

You are realizing that your "arguments" only theoretical prayers? The spin of neutrinos was never measured, it's mass is a theoretical-mathematical derivation. The lepton number conservation would be an argument, if the real structures of nuclei and particles are known. "Quarks" are no arguments, but theory. The presence of neutrinos is only evident by theory. The reality don't need "neutrinos", "quarks", "gluons" and many other inventions of great scientists.

Physics has created for about 120 years (since Bequerels discovery of radioactivity) a theoretical model of the reality which runs merely parallel to reality. Sad to say that the theory determine the experiments and their evaluations, still worse theory determines reality - at least in the heads of scientists.

Knowledge follows reality and not vice versa.

Regards

Hans

The spin of the neutrino has been measured, already in 1958, http://inspirehep.net/record/28185 

You are quite right. There are many places in the literature where we can find treatments of neutrino decays.

Decay of a massive neutrino is considered in the following rather old reference.

Radiative Decays of Massive Neutrinos

Palash B. Pal, Lincoln Wolfenstein  

Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 766

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.25.766

another old reference which you may like is

Are neutrinos stable particles?,  John N. Bahcall, N. Cabibbo, A. Yahil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 (1972) 316

There were also attempts to explain the atmospheric neutrino anomaly via neutrino decay in the following reference:

Vernon D. Barger et al., Phys. Lett. B462 (1999) 109-114, arXiv:hep-ph/9907421

Lastly, here is a paper which analyses why neutrino decay solution is not a suitable theory for the explanation of the solar neutrino deficit.

Solar Neutrino Decay, Andy Acker, Sandip Pakvasa, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9310207

Dear Stam,

about a your previous post where you claim the impossibility of some quantum reactions since they should violate angular momentum and energy conservation, please consider that such conservation laws do not necessarily require that their evaluation on the initial state must necessarily be the same on the final state. In fact, I proved that boundary-effects of nonlinear quantum propagators, encoding such reactions, could produce quantum defect contributions. 

Furthermore, also the conservation of lepton number is only a 'phenomenological conservation law'.

Therefore, before to state that some reactions are impossible ones, one should take more care.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Stam!

The so-called "measuring" of spin and mass of neutrinos are both theoretical-mathematical derivations. There was  never a direct measuring or proof. Experimental references were only rated by theoretical predictions.

Supplement to the lepton number conservation in my previous reply:

I have renounced to indicate the non-existing neutrinos. Provided that the neutrinos are real existing, two equations for conversion of 31-Ga-71-nuclei would be as follows:

(1)    νe   +   31-Ga-71   ↔   32-Ge-71   +   e−

(2)    31-Ga-71   ↔   32-Ge-71 +   e−   +   anti-νe

(1) is the only possibility according to the current theory which was used.

(2) is a second possibility which is unconsidered. The second possibility is resulting in other rates of neutrino oscillation and neutrino density. There are contradictions to theory and also mathematical calculations.

(Actual the neutrino violated the lepton number conservation but you must know the real structures of particles and nuclei. It will definitely be returning to that.)

Regards

Hans

Possibility (1) is the same as possibility (2): an anti-neutrino on the RHS is equivalent to a neutrino on the LHS. 

While individual (electron,muon,tau) lepton number is not conserved, as implied by neutrino oscillations, this doesn't imply that lepton number, in general, isn't conserved; just as the fact that quark flavors mix in the weak interactions doesn't mean that baryon number isn't conserved.

Also, the presence of the neutrino is deduced from energy,momentum and angular momentum conservation, i.e. Poincaré  invariance, not, just, lepton number conservation. 

Dear Stam!

You said: "Possibility (1) is the same as possibility (2): an anti-neutrino on the RHS is equivalent to a neutrino on the LHS." Well spotted!

But there is still a small different even if the neutrino theory should be right: Process (1) would be caused by an electron-neutrino like the theory predict, process (2) is caused by internal energy of the disintegrating atomic nucleus. At this point is a significant error.

"... the neutrino is deduced from energy, ..." like quarks, gluons and some other theoretical creations. If I belive in theory it is ok. In science are only evidences valid.

Regards

Hans

Theory predicts both, and either both are observed or none is observed. In fact both are observed.

Energy and momentum conservation were established in (sub)atomic processes by Compton, in 1923; quarks were discovered in 1968 and gluons in 1979. One doesn't need to believe in these statements, it's possible to check their consequences, by calculation and experiment.

Dear Stam!

My point of view distinguish fundamentally from yours. We cannot settle the dispute at this point. Maybe you can look at this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279963956_Theory_and_reality_on_the_experiment_of_ReinesCowan_1956

Best Regards!

Hans

Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956

To any experiment there's a background to the signal, that must be estimated beforehand and taken into account. The statement is that, if one does take into account *all* effects, there remains a signal of energy, momentum and angular momentum, that's consistent with the presence of an electrically neutral particle of spin 1/2 and measurements in the presence of a magnetic field indicate that this particle, if it's the product of beta-decay, has definite helicity, namely  is ``right-handed''. However it does have interactions, and these were mastered well enough in the late 1960s and early 1970s and since, to enable the detection of their effects on protons and electrons. It doesn't make sense to proclaim that the neutrino signal has background; of course it does. What matters is that it remains, after one has taken into account the background. If one wants to argue otherwise, one must do some quantitative analysis, not rhetoric. These lecture notes,http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/current/teach/module_home/px435/lec_neutrinodetectors.pdf might be useful. That the detection of neutrinos is *called* indirect, doesn't make it any less ``real'' than the detection of any other particle or process.

"Neotrinos" are based on theories and proven by theories. All "neutrino"-experiments are evaluate like the theory would be right. You can find for ever "neutrino"-appearance another causal declaration.

"Auch wenn alle einer Meinung sind, können alle Unrecht haben." Bertrand Russell

Declarations don't matter, one can declare whatever one wishes, the consequences of the declarations only are relevant. Experiments use theory for background-once the background is eliminated, anything else that remains is new. So it's possible to check that, by measuring the energy, momentum and angular momentum of the electron and the nucleus in  β-decay, for instance, there's a mismatch and this mismatch does correspond to the properties of a particle that's called the neutrino. If one wants to state that energy, momentum and angular momentum aren't conserved, one can check for that in other reactions and one finds that they are. 

>>Experiments use theory for background ...

Of course Becquerel had a theory, electromagnetism-that allowed the interpretation of the signal observed on photographic plates. It's not a question of faith at all. And claims of inconsistencies require explanations, not declarations-cf. the course notes linked to above. The theory of the experimental apparatus allows setting up and interpreting experiments in a way that's independent of anything but the phenomenon observed. 

Radioactivity is an accidental discovery. Becquerel discovered radioactivity without any theory. Maybe he had a theory later. But radioactivity was not his field of research. His employee Marie Curie and other scientists were the first experts.

The crucial question is: Does the physics insist on neutrinos or does it search for the real causes of the experimental observations?