MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115475758

Some Problems about the Massive Neutrino Oscillation and New Explanation for the Neutrino Observations

2019· preprint· en· W3115475758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ting-Hang Pei

Bibliographic record

VenueviXra · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNeutrino Physics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutrinoPhysicsNeutrino oscillationParticle physicsMeasurements of neutrino speedSolar neutrino problemOscillation (cell signaling)Solar neutrinoKinetic energyMomentum (technical analysis)Lorentz covarianceAstrophysicsLorentz transformationClassical mechanics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueviXraSame topicNeutrino Physics ResearchFrench-language works237,207