Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 24, 2020 at 15:18 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 4.0
added 64 characters in body
Oct 18, 2020 at 15:16 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 4.0
added 236 characters in body
Oct 17, 2020 at 14:25 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 4.0
added 62 characters in body
May 18, 2017 at 10:17 comment added Cosmas Zachos Of course. . . . .
May 18, 2017 at 5:33 comment added user12262 Cosmas Zachos: "so $\nu_1, \nu_2$ are not the actual physical mass eigenstates $\nu_1, \nu_2$ of today's neutrino experiments" -- First of all, I'd find it better to make this distinction manifest by using suitably distinct notation; say $\nu^{\prime}, \nu^{\prime\prime}$. Secondly, I wonder: If we expand our considertions to full 3-generational PMNS-mixing, then the neutrino states appearing in the "mass vector" are exactly the actual physical mass eigenstates of today's neutrino experiments, aren't they?
May 18, 2017 at 5:32 comment added user12262 Cosmas Zachos: "Since we know so little about the [neutrino mass states] $\nu_i \!$ s it would be perverse to pretend the charged leptons mix [...]" -- Right. In other words: Since we know to manipulate and analyze charged leptons, as well as relevant hadrons, it has been possible for us to experimentally prepare and analyze neutrino samples in terms of their weak states ($\nu_e, \nu_{\mu}, \nu_{\tau}$), rather than their mass states (which nevertheless have meanwhile been established experimentally). The "present convention" represents our historic bias of experimental accessibility.
Apr 29, 2017 at 13:35 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 3.0
added 7 characters in body
Apr 29, 2017 at 13:12 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 3.0
added 46 characters in body
Feb 19, 2017 at 17:32 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 3.0
added 195 characters in body
May 3, 2016 at 19:00 history edited Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 2 characters in body
May 3, 2016 at 18:38 history answered Cosmas Zachos CC BY-SA 3.0