Paul:Maybe there is an artist out there who can produce a picture of a “War_hole” type, canned_quark_soup ?

Entanglement issues on the horizon, Paul?

Soup is Physical Spacetime, Label is…?

See: Spacetime in String Theory by Dr.Gary Horowitz, Apr 20, 2005

After reviewing the properties of spacetime in general relativity, I will provide an overview of the nature of spacetime emerging from string theory. This is radically different from relativity. At a perturbative level, the spacetime metric appears as “coupling constants” in a two-dimensional quantum field theory. Nonperturbatively (with certain boundary conditions), spacetime is not fundamental but must be reconstructed from a holographic, dual theory. I will conclude with some recent ideas about the big bang arising from string theory.

Ok the “strings” are “spagettified” into a multi_entangled consistancy, much like the effect of “spagettification” first introduced in Black Hole “input_output” theories?

Maybe there is an artist out there who can produce a picture of a “War_hole” type, canned_quark_soup ?

Helium droplets, are theorized to be in a solid (canned) state, but give out liquid properties, such as BEC.

Thus I conclude :Al Dente = condensate spaghetti soups

Best pv.

This is described in complete detail over at CV. Basically Neutrinos still oscillate and have mass but the LSND results suggesting something wrong with the standard model are contradicted.

It’s my understanding that if the LSND result had held up, it could have been evidence for sterile neutrinos: neutrinos that don’t participate in the weak interaction. Since ordinary neutrinos participate only in the weak and gravitational interactions, sterile neutrinos would interact only with gravity, making them practically impossible to detect directly.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong!

No cross over point? What role would Navier Stokes play in this?

I’m crushed

Somebody better tell Symmetry Magazine?

For example, when neutrinos interact with matter they produce specific kinds of other particles. Catch the neutrino at one moment, and it will interact to produce an electron. A moment later, it might interact to produce a different particle. “Neutrino mixing” describes the original mixture of waves that produces this oscillation effect.

Current evidence shows that neutrinos do oscillate, which indicates that neutrinos do have mass. The Los Alamos data revealed a muon anti-neutrino cross over to an electron neutrino. See here

So while there is no need for the “sterile neutrino” does this invalidate the oscillation process and whether this invalidates that neutrinos have mass?

Jocelyn Monroe just gave a colloquium on the MiniBoone results today. It was a fantastic talk — anyone who wants to get an overview from an expert should invite her! I’m not even approximately an expert on this subject and am essentially just trying to regurgitate what I learned from her talk, from memory.

One of the major motivations of MiniBoone was trying to understand the LSND result, which indicated an excess of oscillations into electron neutrinos. One possible interpretation of their result was that there exist sterile neutrinos, and that the excess of electron neutrinos in their beam was due to oscillations of sterile neutrinos. This would be one hell of an exciting result if true, so people have been pretty eager to test it.

Hence MiniBoone. MiniBoone makes a beam of muon neutrinos, sends it through half a kilometer of dirt, then dumps the beam in a tank of mineral oil (which is outfitted with a gajillion phototubes). Some of the muon neutrinos oscillate into electron neutrinos en route. The various interactions of the different neutrino flavors with the target produce signatures which they measure in their phototubes; by understanding those things, they can measure the oscillations into electron neutrinos.

Jocelyn’s talk was devoted hugely to the details of how the backgrounds are understood and the data are analyzed. It was impressive. Jocelyn was deeply involved in this process and did a really thorough job going over everything.

The punchline: NO excess. I can’t even say no “significant” excess; there just wasn’t any. They cannot explain the LSND result. (It’s worth mentioning that a good fraction of the MiniBoone team is also associated with LSND — quite an honest approach, it seemed to me.) It remains a mystery what is going on with the LSND data; but, MiniBoone seems to be pointing to a fairly standard result for neutrino oscillations. No sterile neutrinos needed, it would seem.

Take all the details with a grain of salt — the punchline was clear, but this is rather far from my expertise, so I’m likely to be botching things.

Anyone know anything about MiniBoone?

-cvj

thanks for the link. I recall a seminar I heard by Rob Myers last summer. When the first question was asked in the end he made some really funny faces and then said: “I’m disappointed by the question, because it means I didn’t bring anything across.” This was probably the most honest answer I’ve ever heard someone giving in a seminar

Something completely different: have you heard the MiniBoone results? I can’t really find anything sensible about what they have actually measured. Will you write a post on it?

Best,

B.

Soup = the liquid “broth” of quarks and gluons
Al dente = the “softly interacting” (but not too softly!) interacting strings inside the soup that give it its viscosity.