Neutrino oscillation and other related stuff

[Human]

Just my two cents about neutrinos and how they're seen in modern (experimental) physics.

Basic stuff about neutrinos are nicely presented on cassiopaedia and there is also this one C's session.

But there is no mention of neutrino oscillation, so I'll be addressing that and related issues.


[quote author=wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation]

Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon predicted by Bruno Pontecorvo whereby a neutrino created with a specific lepton flavor (electron, muon or tau) can later be measured to have a different flavor. The probability of measuring a particular flavor for a neutrino varies periodically as it propagates. Neutrino oscillation is of theoretical and experimental interest since observation of the phenomenon implies that the neutrino has a non-zero mass, which is not part of the original Standard Model of particle physics.

[/quote]

This phenomenon, as mathematically described today, connects the energy of neutrinos, their distance travelled from "origin" to observational point and difference between squared masses of two (or more) different neutrino types. These neutrino types are usually called mass eigenstates, while the "normal" one that can be identified through weak interaction processes are called weak eigenstates (lepton flavor).

The mass term in neutrino probability function (probability to change flavor) gives that there is no oscillation possible if mass eigenstates have identical masses (meaning that they all can't be 0 either).

There is evidence that neutrinos do oscillate (_http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html) but, until now, all that's been measured (in whatever experiment you pick) is a deficit in neutrino flux (from expected one) in one way or another; so called disappearance experiments; and no measurement of neutrinos appearing with previously nonexistent lepton flavor have been done so far. First of these appearances experiments is OPERA. They, at the highest nominal beam intensity and 5 years of full running, expect to maybe collect 10-15 events of tau neutrino appearing in muon neutrino beam. Until now, no such thing has been observed (officially it's stated that OPERA started in 2008, but I was working there and the first data was already collected in 2006).

Fwiw, it could easily be that these observed deficits are due to neutrino interaction with consciousness and not oscillation at all. ;D

Ok, back to oscillations and mass.

All observed neutrinos so far are left ones but if they have some finite mass then some system could exceed them in speed and by outrunning them look back and see that these neutrinos have now become right-handed.

Btw, right-handed (massive) neutrinos are unfailing spring for numerous theories, especially about the origin of baryon asymmetry of the Universe (matter-antimatter asymmetry, the reason why our physical world exists as it is; the observed ratio between matter and antimatter is very very small so it presents a so called fine-tuning problem in physics)
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter.

Also, if neutrino has some finite mass then the question arises is it Dirac or Majorana particle?


[quote author=wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_heavy_lepton]

Dirac and Majorana neutrinos

Two types of neutrinos originate from the following question: Is a particle really different from its antiparticle?" While the answer is obvious for charged particles, since the positive are distinct from negative particles by their electromagnetic properties, it is not clear in the case of neutral particles. Depending on the answer, the neutral particles will be either Majorana or Dirac types. If the answer to the above question is "yes", then the particle is a Dirac particle. If the answer is "no" and the particle is identical to its antiparticle, then it is a Majorana particle. The concept of the Majorana particle was first introduced by Majorana in 1937. Examples of the Dirac-Majorana particles are the neutral pion, which is identical to its antiparticle and according to the definition belongs to the Majorana type, and the neutral kaon, which is different from its antiparticle and belongs to the Dirac type. To put this in mathematical terms, we have to make use of the transformation properties of particles. We define a Majorana field as an eigenstate of charge conjugation. This definition is only for free fields. We have to generalize it to the interacting field. Neutrinos interact only via the weak interactions, which are not invariant to charge conjugation C. An interacting Majorana neutrino cannot be an eigenstate of C. The generalized definition is: "a Majorana neutrino field is an eigenstate of the CP transformation".

Consequently Majorana and Dirac neutrinos behave differently under CP transformations (actually Lorentz and CPT transformations). The distinction between Majorana and Dirac neutrinos is not only theoretical. A massive Dirac neutrino has nonzero magnetic and electric dipole moments, that could be observed experimentally, whereas a Majorana neutrino does not.

The Majorana and Dirac particles are different only if the neutrino rest mass is not zero. If the neutrino has no mass and travels at the speed of light, then the Lorentz transformation to a faster moving frame is not possible. The difference between the types disappears smoothly. For Dirac neutrinos, the dipole moments are proportional to mass and vanish for a massless particle. Both Majorana and Dirac mass terms however will appear in mass lagrangian if neutrino is to have a mass (which as we know it does).

[/quote]

The process that could resolve this dilemma is called neutrinoless double beta decay.

Some years ago, when I was extensively pondering on these matters, the analogy between neutrinos (sort of mix the mass) and quarks (sort of mix the electric charge) came to my mind, and I played for quite some time with these (and some other as well) concepts, but as my mathematical skills have not been good enough it remained in geometrical sketches and word explanations, i.e. scientifically said "in diapers". :/

Ok, this were my two cents... off to smoke now...

 

[combsbt]

Here is an interesting article that Stephen King wrote on this subject:

_http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1750

Just as light passing through matter slows down, which is equivalent to the photon
gaining a small effective mass, so neutrinos passing through matter also result in the
neutrinos slowing down and gaining a small effective mass. The effective neutrino mass is
largest when the matter density is highest, which in the case of solar neutrinos is in the core
of the Sun. In particular electron neutrinos generated in the core of the Sun will be subject
to such matter effects. It turns out that neutrino oscillations, which would be present in
the vacuum due to neutrino mass and mixing, will exhibit strong resonant effects in the
presence of matter as the effective mass of the neutrinos varies along the path length of the
neutrinos. This can result in a resonant enhancement of solar neutrino oscillations known
as the MSW effect.

This makes sense to me as a decent hypothesis.

edit: Here's info on the MSW effect - _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheyev%E2%80%93Smirnov%E2%80%93Wolfenstein_effect

 

[Human]

Thanks comsbt for this description of MSW effect.

This reminded me of something in last C's session about neutrinos what made my eyes roll...

Emphasis mine.

Session Date: November 28th 2009
...
Q: (Ark) I was reading about this movie 2012. It made a tremendous success in the first week in Russia. They already made so much money - more than any other movie.

(L) I read some people giving it some pretty negative reviews or whatever. I didn't think it was all that bad. I mean, it really was a kind of a depiction of what the pathocrats are really trying to do. Whether it's some big space arks, or whether the actual way it's depicted is {exactly as it is being done in reality} is not important because obviously it's not accurate. I mean all that nonsense about the neutrinos heating up the core of the earth and causing everything to go kaflooey and the gigantic tidal waves... That's erroneously rendered. But the idea that the people in charge know that something's going to happen and the way they keep it secret and their whole plot to save their own skins! What really freaks me out, here they had in this movie all these people paying billions of dollars to get a ticket on this thing. I guess at one point they said the money was being used to build the {the arks}, to finance them, but... What did they think they were going to do when they came out on the other side?
...

Well, I haven't seen the movie but next quote kind of explains this nonsense.

Again, emphasis mine.

This is Bill Ryan's review of 2012 from the Project Camelot site:

...
Emmerich spent $250 million and didn’t check how high the Drakensberg Mountains were, didn’t know what the North Face of Everest really looked like, and failed to locate a high school physics student to ask whether or not neutrinos “mutate”, whether cellphones would still work when solar storms destablize the Earth's core, and whether light planes can fly through clouds of volcanic ash. And that’s before we get started on the plot, the script, the acting, and the logic and/or impossibility of almost every scene. The best online review I read suggested that casting John Cusack in the lead role was like reciting Shakespearean sonnets at a pie-eating contest. Exactly.
...

Truth does occasionally rear its head at Project Camelot ;)

Now, here comes something about neutrinos in astrophysical context that can give some broader perspective.

Quotes are from the book:
Bergström, L. & Goobar, A., Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1999

[quote author=Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, p.223]
The Role of Neutrinos
...
Paradoxically, because neutrinos only interact weakly with matter, they are very important in astrophysics. Where other particles become trapped or can only propagate through very slow diffusive processes, neutrinos are able to escape. Neutrinos can thus connect regions of matter that would otherwise be isolated from each other. Because they are massless (or almost massless), they move at the speed of light, which makes the energy transfer very efficient.
For example, neutrinos produced near the centre of the Sun can be detected at the Earth after a time of flight of around 8 minutes, and permit the study of the nuclear reactions that take place in the core of ‘our star’. The photons generated by the energy-producing nuclear reactions at the centre, however, diffuse slowly to the surface with an average diffusion time of
around a million years!
The lack of electric charge allows neutrinos (like photons) to move in straight lines (or geodesics) even in the presence of strong magnetic fields. According to the Standard Model of particle physics, the magnetic moment of a neutrino is extremely small. They therefore point back to the sites of production, and offer a unique potential for obtaining information about where particle production and acceleration takes place in the Universe.

[/quote]

My comments are in [ ] brackets.

[quote author=Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, p.230]
Stellar Neutrinos
Neutrinos are very efficient in the process of the cooling of stars, in spite of their low probability of interaction with matter.
...
...neutrinos in the MeV [energy] range have a cross-section of σ ~ 10^−44 cm^2 for matter interactions. The mean free path for neutrinos [and also every other particle] is related to the density of matter and the cross-section for interaction as

λ = 1/(n · σ)

where n is the number of nucleons per cubic centimetre.

[/quote]

I think next paragraph will be good for explaining the mean free path...

[quote author=Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, p.207]
...
The general expression for the mean free path for a particle in a scattering region is derived as follows:
Consider a particle incident on a region of area A containing n scatterers per unit volume. The mean free path λ is defined as the average distance travelled by the incident particle before hitting a scatterer. If each such scatterer has a cross-section σ, the probability of a particular one being hit is p = σ/A. Approximately, unit probability that at least one will be hit is reached when N · p = 1, where the total number of scatterers in the volume Aλ is N = Aλn. This happens when λ = 1/(n · σ).
...
[/quote]

So, the mean free path represents a physical quantity that "tells" you how far (in average) will some particle/object go before interacting with surrounding medium.

Ok, back to neutrinos...

[quote author=Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, p.230-231]
...
For normal stellar matter, ρ ~ 1 g/cm^3 [e.g. density of water at standard pressure (1013.25 hPa) and temperature of 4°C], the mean free path becomes 100 pc [1 parsec is approximately 3.26 light years], and even at ρ ~ 10^6 g/cm^3 λ is still 3000 solar radii! In other words, neutrinos with MeV-scale energies escape from the stellar interior without scattering even for extremely high densities. This is what makes neutrinos so special in astrophysical environments.
...
While the rate of electromagnetic processes is overwhelmingly larger, weak interactions are important in the energy balance of a star, as neutrinos, once created, escape from the star, thereby reducing its available energy.

[/quote]

A little bit about neutrinos originating from our Sun...

[quote author=Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics, p.231]
Solar Neutrinos

The low cross-sections of weak interactions allow stars to burn their fuel slowly instead of exploding soon after formation. Our Sun, for example, is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, and is predicted to continue in its present luminous state for at least as long. The main source of energy in hydrogen-burning stars (as the Sun) is through the pp-fusion reaction
[well, this is not just one reaction but the whole sequence of them (usualy 4), and the net result, expressed in very very simplified way, is that you pick 4 protons and create helium out of them along with producing energy (all this is happening in the core of the star) which then balances the gravitational collapse of star's outer layers; pp-fusion nuclear reaction is also called pp or proton proton chain]:

4p + 2e → He + 2ν + 26.731 MeV

where, on average, only about 2 per cent (0.6 MeV) of the energy is carried by the neutrinos according to the ‘standard solar model’, SSM.
...
Next, we calculate the expected flux of neutrinos from the Sun. The total luminosity of the Sun is:

L = 3.92 · 10^26 W = 2.4 · 10^39 MeV/sec

Thus, according to the SSM, the Sun should emit around 2·10^38 electron neutrinos per second. At the Earth, 1.5 · 10^8 km away, the neutrino flux becomes:

φ = 6.5 · 10^14 m^−2 s^−1

Although this is a huge flux, the extremely low interaction cross-section makes its detection very difficult. Several detection techniques have been developed to observe solar neutrinos. The experiments can be divided into two classes: absorption and scattering experiments.

[/quote]

The last number basically says that through every squared centimeter of our skin, each second passes approximately 65 billion of neutrinos. And considering that they only interact via weak nuclear force, maybe only one of them all will interact with particles of our body during average human lifetime.

Ok, these were the neutrinos that come from our Sun.
I also looked for some "violent" cosmological events that can produce extensive neutrino fluxes, like supernova.

One of the most famous supernovas associated with neutrino astrophysics is SN 1987A (the number designates the year when supernova was observed and letter tells which one it was during that year).

[quote author=wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A]

Neutrino emissions

Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at three separate neutrino observatories. This is due to the neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface). At 7:35am Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds.

These 24 observed events are commonly attributed to electron antineutrinos, rather than neutrinos, for the simple reason that these have a much larger interaction with detectors of this type...

...

Although the actual neutrino count was only 24, it was a significant rise from the previously-observed background level. This was the first time neutrinos emitted from a supernova had been observed directly, and the observations were consistent with theoretical supernova models in which 99% of the energy of the collapse is radiated away in neutrinos. The observations are also consistent with the models' estimates of a total neutrino count of 10^58 with a total energy of 10^46 joules.

[/quote]

Integrated flux (sum total) of neutrinos, if numbers from models estimation are taken, that reaches Earth from this kind of supernova (approximately 50 kpc away) is F = 2 · 10^14 m^-2.

OK, now you have some perspective about numbers and events concerning neutrino production.

And, for the end, IMHO, "2012" movie scenario is just ridiculous from science point of view.

 

[John G]

Some neutrino info:

First the session msasa mentioned and gave a link for:

(L) Moving along to the next question: we have been discussing memories and how memories
of, say, past lives are stored, and that leads to the question of what is the structure and composition of the soul? How
does the soul remember? How does it carry its memories from lifetime to lifetime, from body to body, whether
simultaneous or sequential? How does the soul "store" them?
A: Has to do with atomic principles. These with gravity present the borderland for the material and the nonmaterial.
Which theoretical atomic particulates would you think form the basis here?
Q: (L) How about tachyons?
A: Maybe neutrons?
Q: (A) Neutrons? Or neutrinos?
A: Neutrinos.
Q: (A) Well, first they say neutrons, then neutrinos. Or "maybe neutrons." I say "neutrinos" and they say "yes." So a
"maybe" is only a pointer. Neutrinos are funny particles because they are mass less. But, some people don't believe that
neutrinos exist. My guess would be neutrinos. Do they exist?
A: Okay, we are going to throw caution to the "winds," and say yes. [Laughter.]
Q: (L) In terms of these neutrinos and soul composition, how are memories formed or held or patterned with these
neutrinos?
A: Contained within for release when and if suitable.
Q: (L) Memories are contained within the neutrinos?
A: Sort of.
Q: (L) Are they contained within patterns formed by the neutrinos?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) So, that means that if one "consciousness unit," or soul, has more memories or experiences than another
consciousness unit, it would have more neutrinos?
A: No.
Q: (B) Different patterns?
A: No.
Q: (L) What's the difference?
A: More data per unit, sort of.
Q: (L) Does that mean that an individual neutrino can be, in and of itself, more "dense" in data, so to speak?
A: So to speak.
Q: (L) Does this increased density of data change the nature or function of the individual neutrino?
A: Maybe it changes the function of the awareness, thus the environs.
Q: (L) Is there a specific number of neutrinos that constitutes a consciousness unit, or soul?
A: Number is not quite the right concept. Orientation is closer.
Q: (L) What are the orientational options?
A: Vibrational frequencies.
Q: (L) Do the vibrational frequencies increase or decrease with density of data?
A: Change; better not to quantify.
Q: (A) We are talking about soul. Soul is what density, in concept?
A: Ark, are neutrinos related to the concept of a bridge into pure energy in some way?
Q: (A) Yes. I was going in that direction. I was wondering why you speak about neutrinos and not photons, because
photons are also a bridge to pure energy, I would say. The difference between photons and neutrinos is that photons are
bosons and neutrinos are fermions. Neutrinos have to dance so that they don't touch each other. Bosons are like pairs of
neutrinos and photons, as bosons, are free to move in space any way they want.
A: We would mention photons in terms of this discussion, but for the tendency of some reading the WebPages to
misinterpret in terms of the "love and light" fantastic.
Q: (L) Well, the "light fantastic" was a dance around the turn of the century, so that refers back to the remark about
"dancing." (A) Are neutrinos the fundamental building blocks of everything? The most fundamental particle, so to speak?
A: More like a midpoint with spherical outward expansive quality. Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon.

from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/snu.html

The upshot: all the nu's from the sun are directly accounted for. The missing nu-e flux shows up as an observable mu-nu and tau-nu flux. This conclusion is established with a statistical surety of 5.3 standard deviations, compared to the less robust 3.3 of a year ago. The measured e-nu flux (in units of one million per cm2 per second) is 1.7 while that for the mu-nu and tau-nu combined is 3.4. (When one includes all the other types of neutrinos, the flux from the sun is billions/cm^2/sec.)

Even the issue of how the neutrino changes from one flavor to another can be addressed by viewing the day-night asymmetry of neutrino flux. When the whole of the earth is between the sun and the detector (night viewing) the oscillation process, which depends on a density of matter through which the nu proceeds, should be speeded up. This type of measurement will also contribute to the eventual study of neutrino mass. An experiment like SNO can measure not mass but the square of the mass difference between nu species. ...".

"... The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) has measured day and night solar neutrino energy spectra and rates. For charged current events, assuming an undistorted 8B spectrum, the night minus day rate is 14.0% +/- 6.3% +1.5 - 1.4% of the average rate. If the total flux of active neutrinos is additionally constrained to have no asymmetry, the nu_e asymmetry is found to be 7.0% +/- 4.9% +1.3 - 1.2%.A global solar neutrino analysis in terms of matter-enhanced oscillations of two active flavors strongly favors the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution. ...".

from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/NeutrinoMixing.pdf

the mass of nu_1 is zero at tree-level and it picks up no first-order correction while propagating entirely through physical Minkowski spacetime, so the first-order corrected mass of nu_1 is zero.

the mass of nu_3 is zero at tree-level but it picks up a first-order correction propagating entirely through internal symmetry space by merging with an electron through the weak and electromagnetic forces, effectively acting not merely as a point but as a point plus an electron loop at both beginning and ending points so the first-order corrected mass of nu_3 is given by M_nu_3 x (1/sqrt(2)) = M_e x GW(mproton^2) x alpha_Ewhere the factor (1/sqrt(2)) comes from the Ut3 component of the neutrino mixing matrix so that M_nu_3 = sqrt(2) x M_e x GW(mproton^2) x alpha_E = = 1.4 x 5 x 10^5 x 1.05 x 10^(-5) x (1/137) eV = = 7.35 / 137 = 5.4 x 10^(-2) eV. Note that the neutrino-plus-electron loop can be anchored by weak force action through any of the 6 first-generation quarks at each of the beginning and ending points, and that the anchor quark at the beginning point can be different from the anchor quark at the ending point,so that there are 6x6 = 36 different possible anchorings.

the mass of nu_2 is zero at tree-level but it picks up a first-order correction at only one (but not both) of the beginning or ending points so that so that there are 6 different possible anchorings for nu_2 first-order corrections, as opposed to the 36 different possible anchorings for nu_3 first-order corrections,so that the first-order corrected mass of nu_2 is less than the first-order corrected mass of nu_3 by a factor of 6, so the first-order corrected mass of nu_2 is M_nu_2 = M_nu_3 / Vol(CP2) = 5.4 x 10^(-2) / 6 = 9 x 10^(-3)eV.

from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Sidharth.html

OSCILLATIONS between mu-neutrinos (Compton radius of about a micron) and e-neutrinos (Compton radius as big as our universe ) might form some sort of link between cell-level individual consciousness and universe-level collective consciousness.

from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/E8GLTSCl8xtnd.html

Note also that the fermion particles are fundamentally all left-handed, and the fermion antiparticles are fundamentally all right-handed. The other handednesses are not different fundamental states, but arise dynamically due to special relativity transformations that can switch handedness of particles that travel at less than light-speed (i.e., that have more than zero rest mass).

The above would mean all neutrinos are Dirac particles. The above is for elementary particles not composite particles like the pion.

 

[combsbt]

A: Ark, are neutrinos related to the concept of a bridge into pure energy in some way?
Q: (A) Yes. I was going in that direction. I was wondering why you speak about neutrinos and not photons, because
photons are also a bridge to pure energy, I would say. The difference between photons and neutrinos is that photons are
bosons and neutrinos are fermions. Neutrinos have to dance so that they don't touch each other. Bosons are like pairs of
neutrinos and photons, as bosons, are free to move in space any way they want.
A: We would mention photons in terms of this discussion, but for the tendency of some reading the WebPages to
misinterpret in terms of the "love and light" fantastic.
Q: (L) Well, the "light fantastic" was a dance around the turn of the century, so that refers back to the remark about
"dancing." (A) Are neutrinos the fundamental building blocks of everything? The most fundamental particle, so to speak?
A: More like a midpoint with spherical outward expansive quality. Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon.

This remark is intriguing. Does anyone have any speculations on this "spherical outward expansive quality" or why they mentioned "Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon."?

OSCILLATIONS between mu-neutrinos (Compton radius of about a micron) and e-neutrinos (Compton radius as big as our universe ) might form some sort of link between cell-level individual consciousness and universe-level collective consciousness.

With a change of radius like that taking place during the oscillations, it makes me wonder if that is linked to the "spherical outward expansive quality". I still have no clue why there is a mention of "tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon" although they seem to pop up alot. The new agey people and their "sacred geometry" seems to have obfuscated the matter too, I find it hard to do any research on the significance in this kind of context because I get redirected to some new age BS that claims to have the answer ("we're all just like, emanations of sacred geometry mannnnn").

 

[John G]

This remark is intriguing. Does anyone have any speculations on this "spherical outward expansive quality" or why they mentioned "Tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon."?... With a change of radius like that taking place during the oscillations, it makes me wonder if that is linked to the "spherical outward expansive quality". I still have no clue why there is a mention of "tetrahedron, pentagon, hexagon" although they seem to pop up alot. The new agey people and their "sacred geometry" seems to have obfuscated the matter too, I find it hard to do any research on the significance in this kind of context because I get redirected to some new age BS that claims to have the answer ("we're all just like, emanations of sacred geometry mannnnn").

Ark interestingly figured out the hexagon but not the tetrahedron here:

Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to
be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there was
the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3 pluses
and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a
hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.
Q: (A) That is what I hoped for, however, I see a certain discrepancy between this pentagon, because if I start from five
dimensions, and I try to build something such as a time field from one plus and one minus, I use one dimension, which is
like a light dimension in this five dimensional space, then I end up with two pluses and one minus, which has nothing to do
with anything that we know in physics. For me there is a contradiction between three pluses and two minuses and the fact
that I need to build time as an extra field. What to do? I don't know. What should I do?
A: When we said "spring forth" from 5th dimension, what interesting possibilities does this pose?
Q: (A) You get what we may call a time form and this time form is sometimes like any other physical field. So, of course
the different possibilities that I can mathematically model: time form, time vacuum, different times, time loops, and other
things. These are interesting possibilities that I have, provided I use something similar to Kaluza-Klein. Did I miss
something?
A: It is not that you miss something; it is merely that you have not yet found the something.
Q: (A) What is this something?
A: Tetrahedron.

You can get into what Ark might call non-sacred geometry with this; for example, the cuboctahedron is a root lattice associated with that 4,2 signature (a cuboctahedron being a plot of the ways to create bivectors from 6 vectors and bivectors are useful for describing gravity). Spherical outward expansive quality could relate to that radius which relates to models where elementary particles are described by the Kerr Newman black hole equation. It's of course quite different from what one normally thinks of as a black hole even though it uses the same equation. The small (or zero for the e-neutrino) mass is one difference and another is that the spacetime inside this radius is described with complex numbers instead of just real numbers.

 

[Human]

Thank you Bluelamp for reminding me of these Tony's web pages.

My first reaction was pretty much negative and repellent one; it seemed that Scientific Thought Police had had it's claws on me and that my brain had been already limited with MS fence...

But, on second look, especially part about neutrino mixing, kind of made sense. Tony's "colorful dotty diagrams" really clicked with me, as they've put new light on my "old" geometrical sketches and showed me that there is quite a lot of work/learning in front of me which I eagerly wait for. ;)

Ark interestingly figured out the hexagon but not the tetrahedron here:

Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to
be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there was
the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3 pluses
and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a
hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.
Q: (A) That is what I hoped for, however, I see a certain discrepancy between this pentagon, because if I start from five
dimensions, and I try to build something such as a time field from one plus and one minus, I use one dimension, which is
like a light dimension in this five dimensional space, then I end up with two pluses and one minus, which has nothing to do
with anything that we know in physics. For me there is a contradiction between three pluses and two minuses and the fact
that I need to build time as an extra field. What to do? I don't know. What should I do?
A: When we said "spring forth" from 5th dimension, what interesting possibilities does this pose?
Q: (A) You get what we may call a time form and this time form is sometimes like any other physical field. So, of course
the different possibilities that I can mathematically model: time form, time vacuum, different times, time loops, and other
things. These are interesting possibilities that I have, provided I use something similar to Kaluza-Klein. Did I miss
something?
A: It is not that you miss something; it is merely that you have not yet found the something.
Q: (A) What is this something?
A: Tetrahedron.

You can get into what Ark might call non-sacred geometry with this; for example, the cuboctahedron is a root lattice associated with that 4,2 signature (a cuboctahedron being a plot of the ways to create bivectors from 6 vectors and bivectors are useful for describing gravity). Spherical outward expansive quality could relate to that radius which relates to models where elementary particles are described by the Kerr Newman black hole equation. It's of course quite different from what one normally thinks of as a black hole even though it uses the same equation. The small (or zero for the e-neutrino) mass is one difference and another is that the spacetime inside this radius is described with complex numbers instead of just real numbers.

I'm really intrigued with these C's remarks and Ark's questions and explanations. Do you know which C's session is this quote from?

Although I don't quite understand the background about signs and Clifford algebra is a way above my current mathematical knowledge (during my studies we've used only Weyl algebra), I'm going to study this more thouroughly when I finish my exams. At the moment I'm dealing with regularization, renormalization and loop diagrams in Standard Model what means that I'm in MS particle physics. :(

...
from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/E8GLTSCl8xtnd.html

Note also that the fermion particles are fundamentally all left-handed, and the fermion antiparticles are fundamentally all right-handed. The other handednesses are not different fundamental states, but arise dynamically due to special relativity transformations that can switch handedness of particles that travel at less than light-speed (i.e., that have more than zero rest mass).

The above would mean all neutrinos are Dirac particles. The above is for elementary particles not composite particles like the pion.

FWIW, pion is not a fermion particle, it's a meson which means bosonic hadron (which also means, as you said, that it's not an elementary particle). For some particle to be Majorana type it has to be neutral one, and only neutral elementary fermion is neutrino.
If I understood correctly, all elementary particles in Tony's model were Dirac type particles.

Thanks again for all this. It's surely a lot food for thought. :D

 

[John G]

My first reaction was pretty much negative... But, on second look...

I'm really intrigued with these C's remarks and Ark's questions and explanations. Do you know which C's session is this quote from?

Although I don't quite understand the background about signs and Clifford algebra is a way above my current mathematical knowledge (during my studies we've used only Weyl algebra), I'm going to study this more thouroughly when I finish my exams. At the moment I'm dealing with regularization, renormalization and loop diagrams in Standard Model what means that I'm in MS particle physics. :(

It's from the 12/19/98 session and here's an expanded quote which includes the 12x12x12 Santilli/Dirac gamma matrices Laura recently mentioned in another topic:

Q: (L) I am done, then. (A) This is a question about time... [laughter] You say time is an illusion, but you have said many
times things about time, and I want to ask about this time. I asked whether time was to be considered as the fourth
dimension, you said why not consider time as springing from the fifth dimension. Was this a joke, or was this a serious
thing for me to consider?
A: Serious.
Q: (A) Okay. At another point when we were talking about gravitons, you first said that there were no gravitons, per se,
but that a 'graviton' was an electron in a time vacuum.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) When you said that there are not gravitons, you meant that there are none in the usual sense of the word as implied
by some physicists.
A: Yes, closer.
Q: (A) Well, in a well devised Unified Field Theory, there is a place for something we may call 'graviton,' and this
something comes from, or has a similar source to an electron, but within a time vacuum. At that point I started to think of
time as a kind of field - like other fields. This field has something to do with this fifth dimension. I have a hypothesis about
how one can have time coming from a fifth dimension, and what a time vacuum means. This means that, where there is a
time vacuum, there is no time.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Okay, now, this is one thing. At some other point we were speaking about pentagons and hexagons and I tried to
be tricky and when it came to pentagons, I wrote a mathematical formula, a symbol for a pentagon, and then there was
the question of signs. We needed five signs. I asked you whether there should be four pluses and one minus, or 3 pluses
and two minus. The answer was that there should be 3 pluses and two minuses in a pentagon. Now, what about a
hexagon? What should I put in a hexagon? Three pluses and three minuses, or four pluses and two minuses?
A: Four and two.
Q: (A) That is what I hoped for, however, I see a certain discrepancy between this pentagon, because if I start from five
dimensions, and I try to build something such as a time field from one plus and one minus, I use one dimension, which is
like a light dimension in this five dimensional space, then I end up with two pluses and one minus, which has nothing to do
with anything that we know in physics. For me there is a contradiction between three pluses and two minuses and the fact
that I need to build time as an extra field. What to do? I don't know. What should I do?
A: When we said "spring forth" from 5th dimension, what interesting possibilities does this pose?
Q: (A) You get what we may call a time form and this time form is sometimes like any other physical field. So, of course
the different possibilities that I can mathematically model: time form, time vacuum, different times, time loops, and other
things. These are interesting possibilities that I have, provided I use something similar to Kaluza-Klein. Did I miss
something?
A: It is not that you miss something; it is merely that you have not yet found the something.
Q: (A) What is this something?
A: Tetrahedron.
Q: (A) Okay, at some point we were talking about a 3 dimensional matrix, 12x12x12. I was wondering where this 12
comes from, and I was thinking that 12 is 2x6 and I was supposed to be looking at hexagons, and a hexagon represents
6 dimensions, four pluses and two minuses. If I add to this 6 energies corresponding to 6 dimensions, then I have 12
dimensions, and this would account for number 12. Is this correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Now, this all has something to do with gravity, and at some point you said that all this gravity/anti-gravity business
is just the way, and that the main goal is to attain higher knowledge. What is this higher knowledge; what kind of higher
knowledge?
A: You are on the path.
Q: (A) I want to ask about Ruggerio Santilli. He was here, talking to you, using his own terminology. You were answering
using some of his terminology. Several times I tried to understand his work, but I simply cannot. Is this something wrong
with me?
A: No.
Q: (A) What should I do about this? I have all these papers he wrote which I collected, and I really wanted to study them
and understand, but whenever I started, I had to stop because I do not understand. He is using undefined terms.
A: Undefined terms take shape when fine tuned. Ruggerio Santilli is considered a rogue in the field of physics because he
strays from convention. His dreams direct his research. But this is not such a bad thing. It frees the conscious mind from
the prisons so revered at your density level. Best to lovingly fine tune the work of the dreamer, thus giving it substance in
the realm of convention.
Q: (L) How does one go about lovingly fine tuning the work of a dreamer? (A) This is not the point. The point is that he is
writing mathematics - and what he is writing is NOT mathematics. He is not able to define his terms; neither he nor his
friends who write for him. So, it is not mathematics, it is dreaming. I like reading dreams, but when it is a mathematical
paper with a formula... (L) So, the next obvious question is how to convert this into mathematics?
A: Is tricky, but requires patience in the form of removing and reworking the mathematical units that do not fit.
Q: (A) He has this obsession with using variable units... iso-units... and he has this view of gravity that is similar to the
view of some other Russian physicists... and, according to him, space-time is flat. It is just a flat space with an iso-unit - a
deformed unit. This is contrary to Einstein where space-time is curved, and you have worm-holes and all kinds of
topological features. But, for Santilli, space-time is a flat space with time. Is he right in this?
A: And flat cannot curve?
Q: (A) If something is flat, it cannot have a hole, or a wormhole... if it is flat, it is flat. It cannot get a hole which is
connected to the other hole.
A: What if the "hole" is parallel to the plane of the flat curve, rather than perpendicular?
Q: (A) In Einstein's gravitational theory and cosmology, we are told that the universe is closed, so it looks like a spherical
surface... it cannot be a spherical surface...
A: That assumes only one universe. Not interconnecting ones of variant natures, and therein lies the fault with Einstein's
theory. However, there is a void of known substance to Einstein's Unified Field Theory. Why do you suppose he
embarked upon that path to begin with? It was to serve as a merger between his hypotheses. Its completion was made
secret.
Q: (A) Okay, we have this material world, and the spiritual world, and mathematics is supposed to help us to bridge these
two worlds. I know how to describe the material world, fields, particles, waves, quantum waves, with mathematics. But, I
want to know what mathematical concepts are needed or should be used to describe this other part, the spiritual part.
Now the only thing I know about this spiritual part is that we were told that consciousness is the purest form of energy.
Should the mathematical concepts used to describe energy also be used to describe consciousness? Or, is something else
needed?
A: Well, you certainly get there by utilizing mathematical concepts.
Q: (A) Well, we certainly have to get there by utilizing mathematical concepts, however my question is: WHICH
mathematical concepts? What should they look like? Which direction? I have NO IDEA how to mathematically model
consciousness and how to bridge it to the physical world. How to do it? Give me a starting point, if you please.
A: What starting point do you seek?
Q: (A) Okay. Point to me a paper, a book, somebody, some idea, that will put me on the track. I have no idea at all how
to go beyond the physical world using mathematics. I can dream... (L) Do the same terms that describe the physical
world also describe the spiritual world, but with maybe a sort of twist?
A: Mathematics is the great unifier.
Q: (L) Are you saying that mathematics ITSELF is the expression of the spiritual world?
A: Bridge.
Q: (L) Well, since all is an illusion, it would seem to me that the mathematics that describe the physical world would be, at
the same instant, describing the spiritual world - only, perhaps, a mirror image.
A: Illusions only fit their own realms, as needed. Why do you have infinity?
Q: (A) Well, because we have natural numbers, and we can easily prove that there are infinitely many natural numbers.
A: But this is the desperate attempt to superimpose a linear scale upon that which is, by nature, really cyclical.
Q: (A) Okay, do you say we have to get rid of infinity? We should count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0? Or
something like that? We don't NEED infinity? No, probably not, because the question was about consciousness... and
not we are prodded to think about infinity - everything is cyclical. Okay, just a while ago I was asking about this plane,
and a plane is infinite, contrary to a sphere which is finite and cyclical. You said that the plane is good and the sphere is
bad. So...
A: No.
Q: (A) But a plane, by itself, is infinite - that's how we came to infinity, because we had an infinite plane...
A: What is a circular plane?
Q: (A) What?! A disc. Sometimes we ask them questions and we get answers to other questions... Last question: I am in
a general state of desperation because there are so many things to learn, so many paths to follow, so many things to be
investigated, so many theorems to prove, so many mathematical concepts that can be developed, and so many things
beyond mathematics and physics that need to be investigated, crop circles, for instance, that I really don't know where to
start. I don't want to go in a maze that goes nowhere... What to do?
A: When confronted with such a quandary, it is best to simply do, without prejudice, nor fear of error. Let the path create
itself, in other words. And, on that note, good night.

Hi msasa, although Tony's site was a huge help for me in understanding what Ark and the Cs talk about, Tony can be wrong about things. So can Ark and even the Cs often as Laura says give answers a little to the left or right of where the most correct answer is (so that we get to do the work). That said, yes it does seem good tp keep ideas (that are perhaps Wave related) around for a second look in case they are useful.

This session was kind of the classical/Einstein end of the problem, Ark also and more recently mostly works on the quantum end (with algorithms for a computer). They certainly meet at some point and that meeting is probably the end goal for the classical end but the quantum end has extra problems like perhaps a relationship with prime numbers:

from Tony:

When you take quantum superpositions in the many-worlds quantum theory,
you get things such as quantum loops/graphs of higher and higher order,
whose description involves the prime numbers
as described on my web pages, including
... http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Rzetazeta.html#qsohprime
and which may be closely related to the p-adic geometry
that you use, Matti. However, I have a hard time visualizing
p-adic stuff, so I have not written much about it.
I had been trying to read about it and understand it recently,
but I have become depressed and discouraged about doing further work.

As for Matti:

Q: (A) There are several people who essentially think the same direction as we have been discussing... they are almost on
the same track. Matti Pitkanen is one of them and Tony Smith is the other. How can these two guys have these similar
ideas without having access to channeling?
A: Who said that they have no access to channeling? Some channel without knowing it.

If I understood correctly, all elementary particles in Tony's model were Dirac type particles.

That's true.

 

[Human]

I had a journal club meeting yesterday where the following article was discussed:

S. Abe et al. (The KamLAND Collaboration), Precision Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters with KamLAND, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 221803 (2008)

Here is it's abstract:

[quote author=_http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v100/i22/e221803]

The KamLAND experiment has determined a precise value for the neutrino oscillation parameter Δm212 and stringent constraints on θ12. The exposure to nuclear reactor antineutrinos is increased almost fourfold over previous results to 2.44×1032  proton yr due to longer livetime and an enlarged fiducial volume. An undistorted reactor ν̅e energy spectrum is now rejected at >5σ. Analysis of the reactor spectrum above the inverse beta decay energy threshold, and including geoneutrinos, gives a best fit at Δm212=7.58-0.13+0.14(stat)-0.15+0.15(syst)×10-5  eV2 and tan⁡2θ12=0.56-0.07+0.10(stat)-0.06+0.10(syst). Local Δχ2 minima at higher and lower Δm212 are disfavored at >4σ. Combining with solar neutrino data, we obtain Δm212=7.59-0.21+0.21×10-5  eV2 and tan⁡2θ12=0.47-0.05+0.06.

[/quote]


Apart from the measurements and neutrino parameters presented in the article, I've found the following excerpt quite interesting, because it's mentioning a nuclear (geo)reactor at the Earth's center:


[quote author=S. Abe et al. (The KamLAND Collaboration), Precision Measurement of Neutrino Oscillation Parameters with KamLAND, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 221803 (2008)]
...
The KamLAND data, together with the solar v data, set an upper limit of 6.2 TW (90% CL) for a ν̅e reactor source at the Earth's center [19], assuming that the reactor produces a spectrum identical to that of a slow neutron artificial reactor.
...
[/quote]

The reference 19 is:

J. M. Herndon, Nuclear georeactor origin of oceanic basalt 3He/4He, evidence, and implications, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 3047 (2003)

and it's abstract says:

[quote author=_http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3047.abstract]

Nuclear georeactor numerical simulation results yield substantial 3He and 4He production and 3He/4He ratios relative to air (RA) that encompass the entire 2-SD (2σ) confidence level range of tabulated measured 3He/4He ratios of basalts from along the global spreading ridge system. Georeactor-produced 3He/4He ratios are related to the extent of actinide fuel consumption at time of production and are high near the end of the georeactor lifetime. Georeactor numerical simulation results and the observed high 3He/4He ratios measured in Icelandic and Hawaiian oceanic basalts indicate that the demise of the georeactor is approaching. Within the present level of uncertainty, one cannot say precisely when georeactor demise will occur, whether in the next century, in a million years, or in a billion years from now.

[/quote]

I've checked Herndon on wikipedia:

[quote author=wikipedia _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marvin_Herndon]

J. Marvin Herndon (born 1944) is an American interdisciplinary scientist, who earned his BA degree in physics in 1970 from the University of California, San Diego and his Ph.D. degree in nuclear chemistry in 1974 from Texas A&M University. For three years, J. Marvin Herndon was a post-doctoral assistant to Hans Suess and Harold C. Urey in geochemistry and cosmochemistry at the University of California, San Diego. He is the President of Transdyne Corporation in San Diego, California. He has been profiled in Current Biography, and dubbed a “maverick geophysicist” by The Washington Post. He is most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal. More recently, he has suggested planetocentric nuclear fission reactors as energy sources for the gas giant outer planets and stellar ignition by nuclear fission.

[/quote]

and there is also a SOTT article about him and his ideas:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/144751-Fire-down-below-Could-we-be-standing-above-an-untamed-nuclear-reactor-nearly-10-kilometres-across-

A little bit about georeactors from wikipedia:

[quote author=wikipedia _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor]

Georeactor

The georeactor is a proposal by J. Marvin Herndon that a nuclear fission reactor may exist and operate at the Earth's core and serves as the energy source for the geomagnetic field. Herndon had earlier proposed the existence of fission reactors at the centers of large gaseous planets such as Jupiter and Saturn.

The georeactor hypothesis modifies the widely accepted dynamo theory. The georeactor hypothesis explains how convection can occur and power a dynamo, even though the solid rock of the crust insulates the core and should stop the convection. Georeactors may also explain apparent excess heat produced by the core of the Earth and certain gas giant planets. The evidence for georeactors depends on subtle measurements of heat loss and geologic helium emissions which are disputed because alternative explanations exist. Fission georeactors would depend upon the elemental abundance, concentration and dispersion of fissionable Uranium which is also disputed. Fusion georeactors can explain the same facts, but assume an undemonstrated form of high-pressure, low temperature fusion. The existence of such fusion is disputed, but could be called into question by geologic measurements of Tritium.

Both reactor hypotheses could be tested by observations of neutrino emissions, but these would require large, expensive experimental equipment, and at this time (2008) the experiments remain unfunded.

The disputed georeactor hypothesis refers specifically to the formation of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction and not to the production of heat from the decay of radionuclides such as potassium-40, uranium-238 and thorium-232 which is more widely accepted.
...

Natural nuclear reactors

In the 1970s, geochemists documented the existence of naturally-occurring slow fission reactors in uranium-bearing geologic formations at Oklo in Gabon, Africa. The Oklo natural nuclear fission reactors operated approximately 1.5 to 2.0 billion years ago, when the natural occurrence of the uranium-235 isotope (required for the fission chain-reaction) was much higher.

The georeactor

Herndon's calculations also permitted the existence of a similar reactor at the Earth's core, depending on certain unconventional assumptions regarding the composition of the core, in particular the oxidation state of uranium and the likelihood of its precipitating to the center. He justifies these assumptions by comparison with the composition of enstatite chondrite meteorites, which do have the necessary highly reduced oxidation states and are the only chondrite meteorites which have sufficient iron metal-alloy to match the composition of the Earth with its massive core.

The Earth's magnetic field in relation to the reactor

According to Herndon, the energy produced by the reactor is what sustains the magnetic field of the Earth. He says the energy produced maintains the field. The field has weakened in recent years to indicate a possible polarity switch of our planet's poles. In his theory the switches in the field are caused by the reactor turning on and off.

Dynamo theory

In 2007, Herndon suggested a modification of dynamo theory, in which the electrically conducting operant fluid, and thus region of dynamo action, may be contained within the geocentric nuclear fission reactor, called the georeactor, in its fluid sub-shell, rather than the in Earth’s iron-alloy core. Herndon has pointed out the following reasons why long-term stable convection would not be favorable within the Earth’s fluid core: Maintaining stable convection would require maintaining an adverse temperature gradient, which would require efficient removal of heat brought to the top of the core by convection , but the Earth’s core is insulated by a 2900 km thick blanket of silicate rock, the mantle, which has a much lower thermal conductivity, lower heat capacity, and higher viscosity than the core; all impediments to efficient removal of heat brought to the top of the core by convection. Herndon pointed out that these impediments would not be the case for convection within the georeactor sub-shell, which surrounds the actinide, heat producing sub-core, and which itself is surrounded by the inner core, acting as a heat sink, surrounded by another heat sink, the core, both of which are reasonably good conductors of heat. Moreover, radioactive decay of neutron-rich fission products in the georeactor sub-shell assures a continuous supply of charged particles for establishing a seed-field for dynamo initiation.
...
[/quote]

The whole story about georeactors has reminded me somehow of Gurdjieff's and Mouravieff's notion about The Ray of Creation and how Earth (and planets) could become Sun one day. Till now I've always considered that notion to be more (and almost only) like some energy characteristic and allegory, but with these information, which are btw totally new to me, there exists a possibility that The Ray of Creation notions could be something "palpable and perceivable" in our physical world.

 

[Human]

'Neutrino oscillation': The OPERA experiment likely seen the first tau-neutrino _http://www.physorg.com/news194544551.html

OPERA reported yesterday that they observed first muon-neutrino to tau-neutrino oscillation event (with a probability of about 98%).

'Neutrino oscillation': The OPERA experiment likely seen the first tau-neutrino
May 31, 2010


(PhysOrg.com) -- After seven years since the start of construction of the OPERA experiment and three years of operation in the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN), one of the many billions of muon-neutrinos produced at the CERN accelerator complex (CNGS) has likely "transformed" into a tau-neutrino that has been observed by the OPERA apparatus.

This is an extremely important result. The observation of a few more of these tau-neutrino events over a large number of conventional muon-neutrino interactions will represent the long awaited proof of the direct conversion of one type of neutrino into another: the so called "neutrino oscillation" mechanism.

The disappearance of the initial neutrino flavour has already been observed by several experiments in the last 15 years, but the "direct appearance" is still the outstanding missing tile of the puzzle, and the OPERA experiment is unique worldwide for this purpose. Neutrino oscillation is today the only indication of new, fascinating physics beyond the so-called Standard Model of particles and interactions, opening the possibility of unexpected implications in cosmology, astrophysics and particle physics.

The experiment was inaugurated in 2006, when the first "normal" muonneutrinos were detected after a trip of 730 km from CERN, covered in about 2.4 milliseconds, at the speed of light. After then, a careful and tireless search started to find the tiny and very special signal induced by a tau-neutrino.

OPERA accomplishes its neutrino detection task with its "heart" made of more than 150,000 small units called "bricks" (for a total mass of 1,250 tons) each of them equivalent to a sophisticated photographic camera. Thanks to these bricks, made of a sandwich of lead plates and special photographic films, the OPERA researchers can detect all details of the "neutrino events" by accurately measuring the elementary particles produced in the interaction of the neutrino with the brick.

OPERA has been designed, realized and being conducted by a large team of researchers from all over the world: Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Russia, Switzerland, Tunisia and Turkey.

The computer display of the first tau-neutrino candidate event is shown above. One can see a detail of the region around the point of interaction of the neutrino (coming from the left of the figure) producing several particles identified by their tracks in the brick. The detection of the track with a "kink" is the likely signature of a tau-neutrino interaction, with a probability of about 98%. The picture describes a volume of only a few cubic millimetres, but rich of valuable information for the OPERA physicists.

The OPERA Collaboration presently includes about 170 researchers from 33 institutions and 12 countries.

More information: The OPERA experiment - _http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/spip.php?rubrique39

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Physicists solve mystery of missing neutrinos

Scientists in Europe announced Monday they had likely solved the case of the missing neutrinos, one of the enduring mysteries in the subatomic universe of particle physics.

If confirmed in subsequent experiments, the findings challenge core precepts of the so-called Standard Model of physics, and could have major implications for our understanding of matter in the universe, the researchers said.

For decades physicists had observed that fewer neutrinos -- electrically neutral particles that travel close to the speed of light -- arrived at Earth from the Sun than solar models predicted.

That meant one of two things: either the models were wrong, or something was happening to the neutrinos along the way.

At least one variety called a muon-neutrino was actually seen to disappear, lending credence to a Nobel-winning 1969 hypothesis that the miniscule particles were shape-shifting into a new and unseen form.

Now scientists at Italy's National Institute for Nuclear Physics have for the first time observed -- with 98 percent certainty -- what they change into during a process called neutrino oscillation: another type of particle known as tau.

"This will be the long-awaited proof of this process. It was a missing piece of the puzzle," said Antonio Ereditato, a researcher at the Institute and spokesman for the OPERA group that carried out the study.

"If true, it means that new physics will be required to explain this fact," he said by phone.

Under the prevailing Standard Model, neutrinos cannot have mass. But the new experiments prove that they do.

One implication is the existence of other, as yet unobserved types of neutrinos that could help clarify the nature of Dark Matter, which is believed to make up about 25 percent of the universe.

"Whatever exists in the infinitely small always has repercussions in the infinitely big," Ereditato said.

"A model which could explain why the neutrino is so small without vanishing will have profound implications for the understanding of our universe -- how it was, how it evolved, and how it will eventually die."

The transformation of the neutrino occurred during a programmed journey from Geneva to the Gran Sasso Laboratory near L'Aquila in central Italy.

The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) provided a laser-like beam composed of billions upon billions of muon neutrinos that took only 2.4 milliseconds to make the 730-kilometer (453-mile) trip.

The rarity of neutrino oscillation, coupled with the fact that the particles interact only weakly with matter, bedeviled the scientists.

Unlike charged particles, neutrinos are not sensitive to the electromagnetic field normally used by physicists to bend the trajectory of particle beams.

They can also pass through matter, and thus keep the same direction of motion from their inception.

It took nearly four years from the time the beam was switched on to witness the muon-to-tau metamorphosis.

Provided by Gran Sasso Laboratory