Violation of the equivalence principle in the light of the SNO and SK solar neutrino results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) result on charged current deuteron disintegration, the Super Kamiokande 1258-day data on electron scattering, and other solar neutrino results are used to reexamine the model of neutrino oscillations driven by a violation of the equivalence principle. We use a ${\ensuremath{\chi}}^{2}$ minimization technique to examine oscillations between the ${\ensuremath{\nu}}_{e}$ and another active neutrino, both massless, and find that within the standard solar model the fit to the SNO and Super-Kamiokande spectra is moderately good while a very good fit is obtained when the absolute normalizations of the ${}^{8}\mathrm{B}$ and ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}+p$ (hep) neutrino fluxes are allowed to vary. The fit to the total rates from the different experiments is not encouraging but when the rates and spectra are considerd together the situation is much improved. The best fit prefers maximal mixing, essentially no hep neutrinos, and a 23% reduction in the ${}^{8}\mathrm{B}$ neutrino flux. We remark on the expectations of the violation of the equivalence principle model for the neutral current measurements at SNO.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".