Strongest evidence yet that neutrinos explain how the universe exists
New data throws more support behind the theory that neutrinos are the reason the universe is dominated by matter.
more…
more on same story
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/where-did-all-the-antimatter-go-scientists-are-closer-to-finding-out/
Paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2177-0.epdf
> Strongest evidence yet that neutrinos explain how the universe exists
Well, Tau.Neutrino does explain how the universe exists. Frequently :-)
Tau.Neutrino said:
more on same storyhttps://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/where-did-all-the-antimatter-go-scientists-are-closer-to-finding-out/
Paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2177-0.epdf
> The current laws of physics do not explain why matter persists over antimatter … T2K … strongest evidence yet that neutrinos and antineutrinos behave differently.
> over 95 per cent sure
Not good enough for me, I don’t trust anything under 99.5% sure in subatomic physics … but see below.
> Differences between quarks and antiquarks are smaller than between neutrinos and antineutrinos … The fact that muon neutrinos oscillate into electron neutrinos was first discovered by the T2K experiment in 2013.
Interesting.
> the team fired beams of muon neutrinos and antineutrinos from the J-PARC facility at Tokai, Japan, and detected how many electron neutrinos and antineutrinos arrived at the Super-Kamiokande detector 295km away. They looked for differences in how the neutrinos or antineutrinos changed flavour, finding neutrinos appear to be much more likely to change than antineutrinos.
I need to read that technical article.
> The charge-conjugation and parity-reversal (CP) symmetry of fundamental particles is a symmetry between matter and antimatter. Violation of this CP symmetry was first observed in 1964, and CP violation in the weak interactions of quarks was soon established.
1964, that long ago. And they’re still trying to pin it down.
> CP asymmetry in quarks is too small to support this explanation.
The researchers into bottom quarks have kept that quiet! It’s a wonder that this paper passed peer review, but it makes sense to me now that I think about it.
> 3 sigma
That’s 99.7% sure. not 95% sure.
> for normal and for inverted mass ordering
Come on, folks. Rule out inverted mass ordering.
mollwollfumble said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
more on same storyhttps://www.gizmodo.com.au/2020/04/where-did-all-the-antimatter-go-scientists-are-closer-to-finding-out/
Paper
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2177-0.epdf
> The current laws of physics do not explain why matter persists over antimatter … T2K … strongest evidence yet that neutrinos and antineutrinos behave differently.
> over 95 per cent sure
Not good enough for me, I don’t trust anything under 99.5% sure in subatomic physics … but see below.
> Differences between quarks and antiquarks are smaller than between neutrinos and antineutrinos … The fact that muon neutrinos oscillate into electron neutrinos was first discovered by the T2K experiment in 2013.
Interesting.
> the team fired beams of muon neutrinos and antineutrinos from the J-PARC facility at Tokai, Japan, and detected how many electron neutrinos and antineutrinos arrived at the Super-Kamiokande detector 295km away. They looked for differences in how the neutrinos or antineutrinos changed flavour, finding neutrinos appear to be much more likely to change than antineutrinos.
I need to read that technical article.
> The charge-conjugation and parity-reversal (CP) symmetry of fundamental particles is a symmetry between matter and antimatter. Violation of this CP symmetry was first observed in 1964, and CP violation in the weak interactions of quarks was soon established.
1964, that long ago. And they’re still trying to pin it down.
> CP asymmetry in quarks is too small to support this explanation.
The researchers into bottom quarks have kept that quiet! It’s a wonder that this paper passed peer review, but it makes sense to me now that I think about it.
> 3 sigma
That’s 99.7% sure. not 95% sure.
> for normal and for inverted mass ordering
Come on, folks. Rule out inverted mass ordering.
“even if neutrinos do violate CP, that won’t be the end of the story—it’s just one of Sakharov’s three conditions for explaining the matter-antimatter asymmetry mystery I mentioned before. Scientists must find other yet-to-be-discovered processes, such as lepton or baryon number violation—essentially, processes where core numbers describing neutrinos and protons change in yet-to-be-observed ways, like protons decaying or neutrinos annihilating themselves. And even then, theorists must find the right model in which these deviations actually lead to the differences between matter and antimatter observed in our universe.”
Hmm.