The neutrinos that have been studied are atmospheric neutrinos,
so-called due to their creation in our atmosphere from a colliding
cosmic ray. The high-energy particles of cosmic
rays are completely homogeneous in origin, and when they collide
with our atmosphere, a shower of particles is created. Two kinds of
neutrinos, electron and muon, can be created.
What has been observed is a reduction in the number of muon
neutrinos passing through the Earth versus the number coming
directly from the atmosphere. The Standard Model would predict that there should be no difference. The observed difference is in fact in
direct correlation with the distance that the neutrino traveled, and
further, it seems to be consistent with the theory of neutrino
oscillation.
This theory describes the governing behaviour of neutrinos which change their type. The latest Kamiokande analysis holds that the oscillation in this case is likely from the detectable muon neutrino to the undetectable tau neutrino. The probability of oscillation is the ratio of the distance that the neutrino has traveled (L) to its energy (E). The new analysis used data with very well-defined L and E values and shows a prominent correlation with theoretical prediction.
This confirmation of neutrino oscillation is consequential to the Standard Model since oscillation is only theoretically possible if the
neutrino has mass, meaning, discovery of evidence proving neutrino oscillation indirectly demonstrates that neutrinos do indeed have mass.
.
I’ve always been amazed (and grateful, considering some of the particles I’ve heard described) just how “porous” matter really is.
The fact that the basic elements (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.) that make up matter are tiny and that many of the other elements (muons, neutrinos, quarks, whatever) are even more tiny is reassuring.
Imagine you’re blindly shooting 1 inch bullets in a universe where each foot wide atom is a mile from the other. What’s the chance you’ll hit an atom?
That’s the way I look at it. And it explains why I like shotguns.
jon
By the way, as an American, I have never liked metric units of measurement.
I appreciate your opinion and can live with it just fine, but I’d be interested, in why? Is it just the convention that you’re not used to that you object to?
James Randi, a prominent immigrant to America (from Canada) who tirelessly works to promote rationality and science education, once commented on the metric system in his weekly commentary. Here is the link, it is about as good a casual discussion of the differences as I can think of. But, again, he was not born in America, rather, in Canada. Canada is now metric, I’m not sure, but I don’t think it was when Randi grew up.
scroll about half way down.
I’m troubled by the assertion that “high-energy particles of cosmic rays are completely homogeneous in origin.” They most certainly are not. Some come from the sun. Others have unkown origins but have energies well in excess of what the sun is capable of, like the oh-my-god particle with the energy of a 55 mph baseball. Recent theories have pointed fingers at magnetic field reconnection in giant radio galaxies and gamma ray bursts. Perhaps the intention behind that statement was to indicate that cosmic rays appear to come from all corners of the sky because their trajectories are altered by magnetic fields,
.
It’s simple. I have learned to think in our antiquated, novel, and very English system of measurement and translating it is a pain in the ass.
The same thing happened in England when they got rid of farthings and shillings and guineas, etc. There was a hue and cry based on history and culture — it had been that way for hundreds of years, so why change? Sadly, policians.
But, America HAS NOT gotten rid of our (inch/foot/yard/mile, cup/pint/quart/gallon, 32 degrees freezing/112 degrees boiling) system in favor of metrics and I doubt they will anytime soon. What did your last speeding ticket say, mph or kph? There are some road signs that list both miles and kilometers (or mph/kph), but that’s the exception to the rule.
I prefer not to go metric because a lot of books I read or things I watch would need to be translated — like the Bible or a weather forcast. I can drink 8 ounces of fluid (a cup), but how much is a liter?
You want me to rant some more? The idea any other language except modern English is our official language is nonsense. The immigrants who have come here for the last 150 years have all taken great pride in learning to speak (and read or write, perhaps) English. My grandparents did. They couldn’t have started their business without that skill.
That’s why I disagree with any state that mandates signs in English and some other language. If you want to come here, learn the language enough to work and get around. I certainly have when I’ve gone overseas.
jon
A meter is about a yard. A mass of 9 kilograms weighs about 20 pounds. Now quickly, can you tell me how many fluid ounces are in a gallon? How many inches in a mile? The metric system is elegant and simple to use and learn. You use base-10 math more than any other system anyway. What could be easier than a system that uses very familiar prefixes (centi-, milli- giga-, mega- , etc.) to modify the size of the base unit simply by moving the decimal point around (especially convenient when using scientific notation)? Also note that both systems use the same basic unit of time, the second. Learn both systems and memorize a few rules of thumb to convert quickly. Oh, by the way, can you tell me the English unit of mass?
Answer: the slug.
What does your rant about metric vs. imperial have to do with neutrino oscillations? The article didn’t even use one or the other system.
.
The answer to your questions is the “patriot act of jxliv7”.
janra, I was merely following a thread started by me, responded to by mtigges, continued by me, and followed up by barakn. Yes, the article didn’t have any unit of measurement attached, but as an example of how much room there was between atoms I explained why I used inches/feet/miles in the example.
Personally, I thought the exchange was beficial (nice article by Josephson, mtigges). I learned something. It’s not that you can avoid metrics, especially if you watch any Star Trek.
And to quote some wise ass in history, “any attempt at communication is good”.
jon
.
Thanks for the “tip”, but the reason I do NOT do that is because I think many SciScoop readers not have their settings adjusted to view the replies (I didn’t at first). Besides, we Americans are used to big cars and wide highways, huge meals, expansive explanations, overkill responses (uhm, like Iraq?), and even inflated egos. Another comment added to the lengthy list is the cost of having a forum.
Your comment about American’s internet habits makes me wonder: where do the readers/posters/commenters of SciScoop hail from? Perhaps rickyjames could add a spot to the comment headers that show it.
Sorry I didn’t have my email address showing, but now it is. A simple, private note to me there would have sufficed. In fact, if there were more email addresses posted, there would probably be less comments (and more friendly interpersonal mail)…
jon
on american-hosted sites, I think most (english speaking) internet users are quite accustomed to seeing inches, miles, and so on used in comments, so I doubt there was any need to post a defensive explanation in the first place… I’d have to say it’s the first time I’ve seen an american do so, in fact.
And a little tip: when you’re replying to somebody’s comment, hit the “Reply to this” link at the bottom of the comment instead of the “Post a Comment” link, that way your comment will be associated with the one you’re replying to – and it’ll be much easier for other people to know what you’re talking about. It also then shows the comment you’re replying to just above your own when previewing, for easy reference.
Everything that I’ve read suggests that cosmic rays are homogeneous in their origins. Moreover, we really have no idea where they come from. They almost certainly do not come from the sun. Some may be influenced locally, but others almost certainly not. No matter how many are affected locally, that we see their evidence from all directions suggests they are homogeneous, no?
But you are right, the statement was meant to mean that cosmic rays are seen as coming from all directions.
English units are fine when reporting science to the general public. I had no problem with your use of them. I was addressing your stated preference to avoid metric in general. If you learned the ponderous English system of measurements, than you should be able to pick up metric in a snap.
You can now see exactly where from, at this link, which you can get to from the “Stats” link at the top of the page.
They almost certainly do not come from the sun.
Look at your original link. There you will read this quote:
The sun has a profound influence on cosmic ray activity. Raw solar wind itself is traveling at a million miles an hour or so. The infamous Halloween Solar storms blew by at 5 million miles an hour, but the highest energy protons arrive much earlier and faster, i.e. just under the speed of light.
We may be arguing over semantics. One camp prefers to name the two separate groups ‘cosmic rays’ and ‘solar cosmic rays’ (leaving one to ponder what to call the mixture of both that bombards our atmosphere), while other people call one group ‘galactic cosmic rays’ and the other ‘solar cosmic rays’ (a mixture of these two groups then referred to simply as ‘cosmic rays’). I prefer the latter naming scheme.
.
I meant where SciScoop reader are from more along the lines of city/state/country (like I hail from Fort Worth, Texas).
While noting where the readers are from in terms of their email suffixes (.com, .uk, .ru, etc.) is interesting, it can be misleading. For example, anybody anywhere can get a .com address from hotmail. I could, if I choose, get an email address from other countries as well.
I had never explored the “stats” menu before, it’s quite extensive and interesting.
One more note, isn’t it unusual that a little thing like the neutrino has spawned such a large number of comments?
jon
You learn something every day. Admittedly I didn’t read the entire link, obviously I should have. Are SCR a recent discovery? From all of my previous readings it was clear we had no idea where from except we knew from everywhere. I’m glad to be shown the light (ha ha) to learn something new.
That stats link displays the countries that SciScoop’s readers come from, as a percentage of total hits. It can’t tell you what state/province or city they’re from though.
From this we learn “Solar cosmic rays were firstly [sic] discovered experimentally on 28 February 1942, as a sudden increase of Geiger counters counting rate was associated with a large solar flare.” You’re not the only person learning something new. It turns out there are not two but three categories of cosmic rays. The third category is anomolous cosmic rays, which are apparently enriched in helium vs. hydrogen and oxygen vs. carbon. These apparently originate from near the heliopause. Who knew?
Solar cosmic rays aren’t that new of a discovery. Perhaps you read things that said the source of cosmic rays is unknown when they should have said the source of galactic cosmic rays is unknown.