I'm no longer a stakeholder in this claim, but my feeling is that the
"weighted average" is probably the best way to handle the claim. I also
agree that 3-4 sigma is probably good for the purposes of the claim.
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> 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.
> Jim Gillogly