Some Problems about the Massive Neutrino Oscillation and New Explanation for the Neutrino Observations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review the massive neutrino oscillation and find some problems about it. The original theory predicts the mass differences existing on three kinds of neutrinos. However, if no external energy or mass participates in the transition process, it will experience the non-conservation of mass when one neutrino transits to others and then transits back to itself again. It also violates one of the conservation of laws of energy and momentum. Furthermore, according to the conservation of momentum in the special relativity, the speeds of neutrinos before and after transition must be different because the mass is non-conserved. It results in the special physical phenomena of self-acceleration and self-deceleration. Especially, it clearly reveals the unhappened neutrino transition at some positions varying with kinetic conditions which means the massive neutrino oscillation is controlled by its kinetic value! On the other words, when the measurements are proceeded at these zero transition places, then the results show no neutrino oscillation phenomenon. Even the violation of the Lorentz invariance is proposed in the standard model extension to discuss the neutrino oscillation without the existence of the mass difference, the all other original elementary particles predicting by the standard model will lose their criteria because they seriously obey the Lorentz invariance. After reviewing the results of Super-Kamiokande Collaboration and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, both results strongly imply the ratio of number between three kinds of neutrinos is approximately νe:νμ:ντ=1:1:1. According to this, we propose a new explanation for the observation data. The detection of neutrinos in the supernova SN 1987A event earlier than light may tell us the truth that the mass of neutrino is very possibly zero. Otherwise, the non-zero mass neutrino must be dragged by gravity to slow down its average velocity whole the traveling period.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it