Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: FX claim Neut: judge's statement changed

Author: Jim Gillogly
Conversation: fx-discuss: FX claim Neut: judge's statement changed ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: Kerry Whisnant's post
Followed-Up-By: Neal Gafter's post, chrisran.bma e-mail's post
Date: Tue Jan 02, 2018 01:38 pm
Kerry Whisnant
Jim Gillogly
chrisran.bma e-mailNeal Gafter



Kerry Whisnant wrote:
> I'm not sure I'll be around when this is resolved :-)

Heh - I'm a decade older, so looks like we could be in trouble.

Thanks for the formula. Any stake-holders care to weigh in on whether you'd
care about the choice of one of Kerry's options?

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Kerry Whisnant <whisnant@iastate.edu> wrote:

> I'm not sure I'll be around when this is resolved :-)
>
> The formula would be |Ue1|^2 m1 + |Ue2|^2 m2 + |Ue3|^2 m3, where Ue1, Ue2,
> and Ue3 are the coefficients for the electron neutrino (elements of the
> so-called PMNS mixing matrix). Absolute square is used since these could be
> complex numbers.
>
> My recommendation would be to get some feedback from people who have a
> stake in the claim, to see if there are strong feelings regarding what
> interpretation to use. The gray areas -- where one interpretation says
> "Yes" and the other "No"-- would be 1) for the normal hierarchy, when the
> lightest mass is between about 0.004 and 0.01 eV, and 2) for the inverted
> hierarchy, when the lightest mass is less than 0.01 eV.
>
> One further note: squared coefficients are used above since those
> represent probabilities of being in a certain state.
>
> Kerry
>
> --
Jim Gillogly

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL