CP Violation, Neutrino Mixing and the Baryon Asymmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study neutrino masses and mixings based on the simplest SO(10) mass relations and the seesaw mechanism. We find that the requirement of large neutrino mixings determines the relative magnitude of the heavy Majorana neutrino masses in terms of the known quark mass hierarchy. This leads to specific predictions for the structure of the neutrino mixing matrix, the light neutrino masses, CP violation in neutrino oscillations, neutrinoless double β-decay and the baryon asymmetry. Recent results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory [1] and from the Super-Kamiokande experiment [2] provide further evidence for the neutrino oscillation hypothesis as the solution of the solar neutrino problem. Neutrino oscillations can also account for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly [3, 4], and a consistent picture is obtained with just three neutrinos, νe, νµ and ντ, undergoing ‘nearest neighbour ’ oscillations, νe ↔ νµ and νµ ↔ ντ. The experimental results on the νe deficit in the solar neutrino flux favour the LMA or LOW solutions [5] of of the MSW conversion with large mixing angle. A large mixing also fits the atmospheric neutrino oscillations. As a result, the leptonic mixing matrix Uαi seems to be very different from the familiar CKM quark mixing matrix Vαi. One finds |Uαi | = O(1) for all elements, except for |Ue3 | < 0.16 [6]. Furthermore, a possible hierarchy among the neutrino masses mi has to be much weaker than the known hierarchy of quarks and charged leptons. The seesaw mechanism naturally explains the smallness of light Majorana neutrino masses m by the largeness of right-handed neutrino masses M [7], mν ≃ −mD 1 M mT D
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".