DOCSLIB.ORG

(A) [10 Points] How Many Different Meso

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(A) [10 Points] How Many Different Meso PHYSICS 474: Introduction to Particle Physics Homework 1 Solution 1. Mesons and Baryons: (a) [10 points] How many different meson (qq¯) and baryon (qqq) combinations can be made with n quark flavors? For n quark flavors, there are n choices for q and n forq ¯, so total n2 meson combinations . For example, 1 quark (u): 1 (uu¯) 2 quarks (u; d): 4 (uu;¯ ud;¯ du;¯ dd¯) 3 quarks (u; d; s): 9 (uu;¯ ud;¯ us;¯ du;¯ dd;¯ ds;¯ su;¯ sd;¯ ss¯), and so on. As for the baryons, we can have three types of combinations: (i) All three quarks the same (e.g. uuu; ddd; sss; ··· ): n ways. (ii) Two same, one different (e.g. uud; uus; dds; ··· :::): n(n − 1) ways. (iii) All three different (e.g. uds; udb; cds; cdb; ··· ): n(n − 1)(n − 2)=6 ways. Here the factor 6 is to cover the equivalent permutations which give the same baryon (e.g. uds = usd = dus = dsu = sud = sdu). So the total is n+n(n−1)+n(n−1)(n−2)=6 = n(n + 1)(n + 2)=6 baryon combinations . (b) [5 points] The Standard Model has 6 flavors of quarks (u; d; c; s; t; b). From your answer to part (a), how many varieties of mesons and baryons would you expect in Nature? For 6 quarks, we expect 62 = 36 mesons and 6 · 7 · 8=6 = 56 baryons. (c) Optional: Why don't we see that many? (You can find the list of all mesons and baryons seen so far in the Particle Data Book.) According to the Particle Data Book, all hadrons seen so far are various excitations of only 25 mesons and 23 baryons (plus anti-baryons) . No bound states involving the top quark have been found so far, mainly because top quark is too short-lived to form 1 bound states that can be observed with current experimental techniques.1 So from the above calculation, with 5 quark flavors, we should have seen 52 = 25 mesons and 5·6·7=6 = 35 baryons. So (only) 12 baryons are missing at the moment. If you want to know which ones, here they are: ucc; scc; ccc; ucb; dcb; scb; ccb; ubb; dbb; sbb; cbb; bbb. Hopefully they will be found soon!2 2. Nuclear β-decay: (a) [10 points] In the early 1900s, the β-decay of an unstable nucleus was thought A A − to be a two-body decay: Z X !Z+1 Y + e . Find the energy and momentum of the outgoing electron in this case. µ µ µ µ µ µ From four-momentum conservation, pX = pY + pe , or pY = pX − pe . Taking the scalar product of each side with itself, we get 2 2 2 pY = pX + pe − 2pX · pe : (1) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Since p = m c , we have pe = mec , pX = mX c and pY = mY c . Also in the rest 2 mX c Ee frame of X, pX = c ; 0 and pe = c ; pe . So m c2 E p · p = X e − 0 · p = m E : (2) X e c c e X e Substituting these into Eq. (1), we get 2 2 2 2 2 2 mY c = mX c + mec − 2mX Ee; 2 2 2 mX − mY + me 2 or; Ee = c : (3) 2mX 2 We also get the energy of Y using the energy conservation, i.e. mX c = EY + Ee, or 2 2 2 2 mX + mY − me 2 EY = mX c − Ee = c : (4) 2mX As for the three-momentum, jpY j = jpej due to momentum conservation. So we can use the energy-momentum relation on either Y or e (should expect the result to be 1 The lifetime of top quark is 4:7 × 10−25 sec, too short even for a strong interaction, which has typical lifetime of 10−23 sec. 2 The counting for baryons is not completely correct, because they are fermions and we need to anti- symmetrize the total wave function. This actually leads to more possibilities than the ones listed here. We will discuss more about this at a later point in the course. 2 symmetric in mY and me): 2 2 2 2 4 Ee = jpej c + mec ; 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ee 2 2 (mX − mY + me) c 2 2 or; jpej = 2 − mec = 2 − mec ; c 4mX q c 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 or; jpej = mX + mY + me − 2(mX mY + mX me + mY me) 2mX c 1=2 2 2 2 or; jpej ≡ λ (mX ; mY ; me) ; (5) 2mX where λ(x; y; z) = x2 + y2 + z2 − 2(xy + yz + zx) is the so-called triangle function. (b) [5 points] Soon after Pauli's proposal in 1930 that a (anti)neutrino must accompany the electron to conserve energy in the β-decay process, there was some confusion whether the neutrino could be coming from inside the nucleus. Use Heisenberg's uncertainty relation to estimate the minimum momentum and energy of a neutrino confined to the nucleus (typical size 1 fm). Compare this with the typical neutrino energy in β-decay (a few keV) to show that the neutrino could not have come from inside the nucleus, but must have been produced in the decay process itself. From Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, ∆x · ∆p ≥ ~ ; or ∆p ≥ ~ : (6) 2 2∆x Taking the position uncertainty to be the size of the nucleus, we have ∆x = r0 = 1 fm = 10−15 m. So the minimum momentum of the neutrino coming from inside the nucleus should be ~ jpj & = 98:7 MeV=c : (7) 2r0 This means the minimum energy of such a neutrino should be p 2 2 2 4 E = jpj c + mνc & 98:7 MeV : (8) Compare this with the observed neutrino energy in β-decay which is less than a few keV, i.e. almost 10,000 times smaller! This suggests that the neutrino could not have been rattling around inside the nucleus, but must be produced in the decay process itself. 3 3. Pion decay: A charged pion traveling at speed 0:9c decays into a muon and an antineutrino: π− ! − µ +ν ¯µ. (a) [10 points] If the neutrino emerges at 90◦ to the original pion direction, at what angle does the muon come off? Four-momentum conservation requires pπ = pµ + pν, or pµ = pπ − pν (the trick is to choose the right combination that eliminates some unknown quantities). Taking the scalar product of each side with itself, we get 2 2 2 pµ = pπ + pν − 2pπ · pν : (9) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Since neutrinos are (almost) massless, pν = 0. Similarly, pπ = mπc and pµ = mµc . Also E E p · p = π ν − p · p : (10) π ν c c π ν ◦ Since the neutrino emerges at 90 to the pion direction, pπ ? pν, so pπ · pν = 0. Hence, Eq. (9) becomes E E m2 c2 = m2 c2 − 2 π ν : (11) µ π c c 2 p 2 2 But Eπ = γmπc (where γ = 1= 1 − v =c , v being the speed of the pion) and Eν = jpνjc. So we get 2 2 2 2γmπjpνjc = (mπ − mµ)c ; 2 2 (mπ − mµ)c or; jpνj = : (12) 2γmπ Also, jpπj = γmπc. So if the muon comes off at an angle θ to the original pion direction, then from momentum conservation, we must have (see Figure 1 jpµj cos θ = jpπj ; and jpµj sin θ = jpνj : (13) Thus, 2 2 2 2 jpνj (mπ − mµ)c 1 − mµ=mπ tan θ = = 2 2 = 2 ; (14) jpπj 2γ mπv 2βγ 4 ν v 90○ π θ μ FIG. 1. Pion decay to muon and neutrino. The angle θ indicates the direction of muon. 2 2 where β = v=c. Substituting β = 0:9, mµ = 105:66 MeV/c and mπ = 139:57 MeV/c , we obtain θ = 2:6◦. (b) [10 points] Find the energy and momentum of the muon. From energy conservation, we have 2 2 2 2 2 (mπ − mµ)c Eµ = Eπ − Eν = γmπc − jpνjc = γmπc − = 307:2 MeV : 2γmπ (15) From 3-momentum conservation [cf. Eq. (13)], we get s (m2 − m2 )c2 p 2 2 2 π µ jpµj = jpπj + jpνj = (γmπv) + = 288:5 MeV=c : (16) 2γmπ 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Five Common Particles
    The Five Common Particles The world around you consists of only three particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons form the nuclei of atoms, and electrons glue everything together and create chemicals and materials. Along with the photon and the neutrino, these particles are essentially the only ones that exist in our solar system, because all the other subatomic particles have half-lives of typically 10-9 second or less, and vanish almost the instant they are created by nuclear reactions in the Sun, etc. Particles interact via the four fundamental forces of nature. Some basic properties of these forces are summarized below. (Other aspects of the fundamental forces are also discussed in the Summary of Particle Physics document on this web site.) Force Range Common Particles It Affects Conserved Quantity gravity infinite neutron, proton, electron, neutrino, photon mass-energy electromagnetic infinite proton, electron, photon charge -14 strong nuclear force ≈ 10 m neutron, proton baryon number -15 weak nuclear force ≈ 10 m neutron, proton, electron, neutrino lepton number Every particle in nature has specific values of all four of the conserved quantities associated with each force. The values for the five common particles are: Particle Rest Mass1 Charge2 Baryon # Lepton # proton 938.3 MeV/c2 +1 e +1 0 neutron 939.6 MeV/c2 0 +1 0 electron 0.511 MeV/c2 -1 e 0 +1 neutrino ≈ 1 eV/c2 0 0 +1 photon 0 eV/c2 0 0 0 1) MeV = mega-electron-volt = 106 eV. It is customary in particle physics to measure the mass of a particle in terms of how much energy it would represent if it were converted via E = mc2.
    [Show full text]
  • Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model
    Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model Andr´ede Gouv^ea1 and Petr Vogel2 1 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, USA 2 Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena, California, 91125, USA April 1, 2013 Abstract The physics responsible for neutrino masses and lepton mixing remains unknown. More ex- perimental data are needed to constrain and guide possible generalizations of the standard model of particle physics, and reveal the mechanism behind nonzero neutrino masses. Here, the physics associated with searches for the violation of lepton-flavor conservation in charged-lepton processes and the violation of lepton-number conservation in nuclear physics processes is summarized. In the first part, several aspects of charged-lepton flavor violation are discussed, especially its sensitivity to new particles and interactions beyond the standard model of particle physics. The discussion concentrates mostly on rare processes involving muons and electrons. In the second part, the sta- tus of the conservation of total lepton number is discussed. The discussion here concentrates on current and future probes of this apparent law of Nature via searches for neutrinoless double beta decay, which is also the most sensitive probe of the potential Majorana nature of neutrinos. arXiv:1303.4097v2 [hep-ph] 29 Mar 2013 1 1 Introduction In the absence of interactions that lead to nonzero neutrino masses, the Standard Model Lagrangian is invariant under global U(1)e × U(1)µ × U(1)τ rotations of the lepton fields. In other words, if neutrinos are massless, individual lepton-flavor numbers { electron-number, muon-number, and tau-number { are expected to be conserved.
    [Show full text]
  • A Discussion on Characteristics of the Quantum Vacuum
    A Discussion on Characteristics of the Quantum Vacuum Harold \Sonny" White∗ NASA/Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Pkwy M/C EP411, Houston, TX (Dated: September 17, 2015) This paper will begin by considering the quantum vacuum at the cosmological scale to show that the gravitational coupling constant may be viewed as an emergent phenomenon, or rather a long wavelength consequence of the quantum vacuum. This cosmological viewpoint will be reconsidered on a microscopic scale in the presence of concentrations of \ordinary" matter to determine the impact on the energy state of the quantum vacuum. The derived relationship will be used to predict a radius of the hydrogen atom which will be compared to the Bohr radius for validation. The ramifications of this equation will be explored in the context of the predicted electron mass, the electrostatic force, and the energy density of the electric field around the hydrogen nucleus. It will finally be shown that this perturbed energy state of the quan- tum vacuum can be successfully modeled as a virtual electron-positron plasma, or the Dirac vacuum. PACS numbers: 95.30.Sf, 04.60.Bc, 95.30.Qd, 95.30.Cq, 95.36.+x I. BACKGROUND ON STANDARD MODEL OF COSMOLOGY Prior to developing the central theme of the paper, it will be useful to present the reader with an executive summary of the characteristics and mathematical relationships central to what is now commonly referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology, the Friedmann-Lema^ıtre-Robertson-Walker metric. The Friedmann equations are analytic solutions of the Einstein field equations using the FLRW metric, and Equation(s) (1) show some commonly used forms that include the cosmological constant[1], Λ.
    [Show full text]
  • Pion and Kaon Structure at 12 Gev Jlab and EIC
    Pion and Kaon Structure at 12 GeV JLab and EIC Tanja Horn Collaboration with Ian Cloet, Rolf Ent, Roy Holt, Thia Keppel, Kijun Park, Paul Reimer, Craig Roberts, Richard Trotta, Andres Vargas Thanks to: Yulia Furletova, Elke Aschenauer and Steve Wood INT 17-3: Spatial and Momentum Tomography 28 August - 29 September 2017, of Hadrons and Nuclei INT - University of Washington Emergence of Mass in the Standard Model LHC has NOT found the “God Particle” Slide adapted from Craig Roberts (EICUGM 2017) because the Higgs boson is NOT the origin of mass – Higgs-boson only produces a little bit of mass – Higgs-generated mass-scales explain neither the proton’s mass nor the pion’s (near-)masslessness Proton is massive, i.e. the mass-scale for strong interactions is vastly different to that of electromagnetism Pion is unnaturally light (but not massless), despite being a strongly interacting composite object built from a valence-quark and valence antiquark Kaon is also light (but not massless), heavier than the pion constituted of a light valence quark and a heavier strange antiquark The strong interaction sector of the Standard Model, i.e. QCD, is the key to understanding the origin, existence and properties of (almost) all known matter Origin of Mass of QCD’s Pseudoscalar Goldstone Modes Exact statements from QCD in terms of current quark masses due to PCAC: [Phys. Rep. 87 (1982) 77; Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3369; Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 267] 2 Pseudoscalar masses are generated dynamically – If rp ≠ 0, mp ~ √mq The mass of bound states increases as √m with the mass of the constituents In contrast, in quantum mechanical models, e.g., constituent quark models, the mass of bound states rises linearly with the mass of the constituents E.g., in models with constituent quarks Q: in the nucleon mQ ~ ⅓mN ~ 310 MeV, in the pion mQ ~ ½mp ~ 70 MeV, in the kaon (with s quark) mQ ~ 200 MeV – This is not real.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 1: the Single Electron Atom: Hydrogen
    Lesson 1: The Single Electron Atom: Hydrogen Irene K. Metz, Joseph W. Bennett, and Sara E. Mason (Dated: July 24, 2018) Learning Objectives: 1. Utilize quantum numbers and atomic radii information to create input files and run a single-electron calculation. 2. Learn how to read the log and report files to obtain atomic orbital information. 3. Plot the all-electron wavefunction to determine where the electron is likely to be posi- tioned relative to the nucleus. Before doing this exercise, be sure to read through the Ins and Outs of Operation document. So, what do we need to build an atom? Protons, neutrons, and electrons of course! But the mass of a proton is 1800 times greater than that of an electron. Therefore, based on de Broglie’s wave equation, the wavelength of an electron is larger when compared to that of a proton. In other words, the wave-like properties of an electron are important whereas we think of protons and neutrons as particle-like. The separation of the electron from the nucleus is called the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. So now we need the wave-like description of the Hydrogen electron. Hydrogen is the simplest atom on the periodic table and the most abundant element in the universe, and therefore the perfect starting point for atomic orbitals and energies. The compu- tational tool we are going to use is called OPIUM (silly name, right?). Before we get started, we should know what’s needed to create an input file, which OPIUM calls a parameter files. Each parameter file consist of a sequence of ”keyblocks”, containing sets of related parameters.
    [Show full text]
  • Muon Decay 1
    Muon Decay 1 LIFETIME OF THE MUON Introduction Muons are unstable particles; otherwise, they are rather like electrons but with much higher masses, approximately 105 MeV. Radioactive nuclear decays do not release enough energy to produce them; however, they are readily available in the laboratory as the dominant component of the cosmic ray flux at the earth’s surface. There are two types of muons, with opposite charge, and they decay into electrons or positrons and two neutrinos according to the rules + + µ → e νe ν¯µ − − µ → e ν¯e νµ . The muon decay is a radioactiveprocess which follows the usual exponential law for the probability of survival for a given time t. Be sure that you understand the basis for this law. The goal of the experiment is to measure the muon lifetime which is roughly 2 µs. With care you can make the measurement with an accuracy of a few percent or better. In order to achieve this goal in a conceptually simple way, we look only at those muons that happen to come to rest inside our detector. That is, we first capture a muon and then measure the elapsed time until it decays. Muons are rather penetrating particles, they can easily go through meters of concrete. Nevertheless, a small fraction of the muons will be slowed down and stopped in the detector. As shown in Figure 1, the apparatus consists of two types of detectors. There is a tank filled with liquid scintillator (a big metal box) viewed by two photomultiplier tubes (Left and Right) and two plastic scintillation counters (flat panels wrapped in black tape), each viewed by a photomul- tiplier tube (Top and Bottom).
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1. Introduction the Phenomenon of Positron Annihilation Spectroscopy
    PRINCIPLES OF POSITRON ANNIHILATION Chapter-1 __________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.1. Introduction The phenomenon of positron annihilation spectroscopy (PAS) has been utilized as nuclear method to probe a variety of material properties as well as to research problems in solid state physics. The field of solid state investigation with positrons started in the early fifties, when it was recognized that information could be obtained about the properties of solids by studying the annihilation of a positron and an electron as given by Dumond et al. [1] and Bendetti and Roichings [2]. In particular, the discovery of the interaction of positrons with defects in crystal solids by Mckenize et al. [3] has given a strong impetus to a further elaboration of the PAS. Currently, PAS is amongst the best nuclear methods, and its most recent developments are documented in the proceedings of the latest positron annihilation conferences [4-8]. PAS is successfully applied for the investigation of electron characteristics and defect structures present in materials, magnetic structures of solids, plastic deformation at low and high temperature, and phase transformations in alloys, semiconductors, polymers, porous material, etc. Its applications extend from advanced problems of solid state physics and materials science to industrial use. It is also widely used in chemistry, biology, and medicine (e.g. locating tumors). As the process of measurement does not mostly influence the properties of the investigated sample, PAS is a non-destructive testing approach that allows the subsequent study of a sample by other methods. As experimental equipment for many applications, PAS is commercially produced and is relatively cheap, thus, increasingly more research laboratories are using PAS for basic research, diagnostics of machine parts working in hard conditions, and for characterization of high-tech materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Neutrino Opacity I. Neutrino-Lepton Scattering*
    PHYSICAL REVIEW VOLUME 136, NUMBER 4B 23 NOVEMBER 1964 Neutrino Opacity I. Neutrino-Lepton Scattering* JOHN N. BAHCALL California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California (Received 24 June 1964) The contribution of neutrino-lepton scattering to the total neutrino opacity of matter is investigated; it is found that, contrary to previous beliefs, neutrino scattering dominates the neutrino opacity for many astro­ physically important conditions. The rates for neutrino-electron scattering and antineutrino-electron scatter­ ing are given for a variety of conditions, including both degenerate and nondegenerate gases; the rates for some related reactions are also presented. Formulas are given for the mean scattering angle and the mean energy loss in neutrino and antineutrino scattering. Applications are made to the following problems: (a) the detection of solar neutrinos; (b) the escape of neutrinos from stars; (c) neutrino scattering in cosmology; and (d) energy deposition in supernova explosions. I. INTRODUCTION only been discussed for the special situation of electrons 13 14 XPERIMENTS1·2 designed to detect solar neu­ initially at rest. · E trinos will soon provide crucial tests of the theory In this paper, we investigate the contribution of of stellar energy generation. Other neutrino experiments neutrino-lepton scattering to the total neutrino opacity have been suggested as a test3 of a possible mechanism of matter and show, contrary to previous beliefs, that for producing the high-energy electrons that are inferred neutrino-lepton scattering dominates the neutrino to exist in strong radio sources and as a means4 for opacity for many astrophysically important conditions. studying the high-energy neutrinos emitted in the decay Here, neutrino opacity is defined, analogously to photon of cosmic-ray secondaries.
    [Show full text]
  • A Young Physicist's Guide to the Higgs Boson
    A Young Physicist’s Guide to the Higgs Boson Tel Aviv University Future Scientists – CERN Tour Presented by Stephen Sekula Associate Professor of Experimental Particle Physics SMU, Dallas, TX Programme ● You have a problem in your theory: (why do you need the Higgs Particle?) ● How to Make a Higgs Particle (One-at-a-Time) ● How to See a Higgs Particle (Without fooling yourself too much) ● A View from the Shadows: What are the New Questions? (An Epilogue) Stephen J. Sekula - SMU 2/44 You Have a Problem in Your Theory Credit for the ideas/example in this section goes to Prof. Daniel Stolarski (Carleton University) The Usual Explanation Usual Statement: “You need the Higgs Particle to explain mass.” 2 F=ma F=G m1 m2 /r Most of the mass of matter lies in the nucleus of the atom, and most of the mass of the nucleus arises from “binding energy” - the strength of the force that holds particles together to form nuclei imparts mass-energy to the nucleus (ala E = mc2). Corrected Statement: “You need the Higgs Particle to explain fundamental mass.” (e.g. the electron’s mass) E2=m2 c4+ p2 c2→( p=0)→ E=mc2 Stephen J. Sekula - SMU 4/44 Yes, the Higgs is important for mass, but let’s try this... ● No doubt, the Higgs particle plays a role in fundamental mass (I will come back to this point) ● But, as students who’ve been exposed to introductory physics (mechanics, electricity and magnetism) and some modern physics topics (quantum mechanics and special relativity) you are more familiar with..
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities for Neutrino Physics at the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS)
    Opportunities for Neutrino Physics at the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) Paper submitted for the 2008 Carolina International Symposium on Neutrino Physics Yu Efremenko1,2 and W R Hix2,1 1University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37919, USA 2Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge TN 37981, USA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. In this paper we discuss opportunities for a neutrino program at the Spallation Neutrons Source (SNS) being commissioning at ORNL. Possible investigations can include study of neutrino-nuclear cross sections in the energy rage important for supernova dynamics and neutrino nucleosynthesis, search for neutrino-nucleus coherent scattering, and various tests of the standard model of electro-weak interactions. 1. Introduction It seems that only yesterday we gathered together here at Columbia for the first Carolina Neutrino Symposium on Neutrino Physics. To my great astonishment I realized it was already eight years ago. However by looking back we can see that enormous progress has been achieved in the field of neutrino science since that first meeting. Eight years ago we did not know which region of mixing parameters (SMA. LMA, LOW, Vac) [1] would explain the solar neutrino deficit. We did not know whether this deficit is due to neutrino oscillations or some other even more exotic phenomena, like neutrinos decay [2], or due to the some other effects [3]. Hints of neutrino oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos had not been confirmed in accelerator experiments. Double beta decay collaborations were just starting to think about experiments with sensitive masses of hundreds of kilograms. Eight years ago, very few considered that neutrinos can be used as a tool to study the Earth interior [4] or for non- proliferation [5].
    [Show full text]
  • Muon Neutrino Mass Without Oscillations
    The Distant Possibility of Using a High-Luminosity Muon Source to Measure the Mass of the Neutrino Independent of Flavor Oscillations By John Michael Williams [email protected] Markanix Co. P. O. Box 2697 Redwood City, CA 94064 2001 February 19 (v. 1.02) Abstract: Short-baseline calculations reveal that if the neutrino were massive, it would show a beautifully structured spectrum in the energy difference between storage ring and detector; however, this spectrum seems beyond current experimental reach. An interval-timing paradigm would not seem feasible in a short-baseline experiment; however, interval timing on an Earth-Moon long baseline experiment might be able to improve current upper limits on the neutrino mass. Introduction After the Kamiokande and IMB proton-decay detectors unexpectedly recorded neutrinos (probably electron antineutrinos) arriving from the 1987A supernova, a plethora of papers issued on how to use this happy event to estimate the mass of the neutrino. Many of the estimates based on these data put an upper limit on the mass of the electron neutrino of perhaps 10 eV c2 [1]. When Super-Kamiokande and other instruments confirmed the apparent deficit in electron neutrinos from the Sun, and when a deficit in atmospheric muon- neutrinos likewise was observed, this prompted the extension of the kaon-oscillation theory to neutrinos, culminating in a flavor-oscillation theory based by analogy on the CKM quark mixing matrix. The oscillation theory was sensitive enough to provide evidence of a neutrino mass, even given the low statistics available at the largest instruments. J. M. Williams Neutrino Mass Without Oscillations (2001-02-19) 2 However, there is reason to doubt that the CKM analysis validly can be applied physically over the long, nonvirtual propagation distances of neutrinos [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Pion, Kaon, and (Anti-) Proton Production in Au+Au Collisions at NN
    Pion, Kaon, and (Anti-) Proton Production in Au+Au Collisions at sNN = 62.4 GeV Ming Shao1,2 for the STAR Collaboration 1University of Science & Technology of China, Anhui 230027, China 2Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA PACS: 25.75.Dw, 12.38.Mh Abstract. We report on preliminary results of pion, kaon, and (anti-) proton trans- verse momentum spectra (−0.5 < y < 0) in Au+Au collisions at sNN = 62.4 GeV us- ing the STAR detector at RHIC. The particle identification (PID) is achieved by a combination of the STAR TPC and the new TOF detectors, which allow a PID cover- age in transverse momentum (pT) up to 7 GeV/c for pions, 3 GeV/c for kaons, and 5 GeV/c for (anti-) protons. 1. Introduction In 2004, a short run of Au+Au collisions at sNN = 62.4 GeV was accomplished, allowing to further study the many interesting topics in the field of relativistic heavy- ion physics. The measurements of the nuclear modification factors RAA and RCP [1][2] at 130 and 200 GeV Au+Au collisions at RHIC have shown strong hadron suppression at high pT for central collisions, suggesting strong final state interactions (in-medium) [3][4][5]. At 62.4 GeV, the initial system parameters, such as energy and parton den- sity, are quite different. The measurements of RAA and RCP up to intermediate pT and the azimuthal anisotropy dependence of identified particles at intermediate and high pT for different system sizes (or densities) may provide further understanding of the in-medium effects and further insight to the strongly interacting dense matter formed in such collisions [6][7][8][9].
    [Show full text]