Timeline for Why do neutrinos propagate in a mass eigenstate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 10, 2016 at 8:21 | comment | added | tparker | I agree that "Physics does not answer ultimate 'why' questions," but for a nonexpert it can be very hard to tell whether a given "why" question is "ultimate" or not! Often these kinds of questions are really asking "Does this result simply follow directly from the postulates so we have to simply accept it, or is there some intermediate mechanism or intuitive explanation that motivates it?" The answer to that question is often obvious to an expert like you, but not to a learner. | |
| Nov 10, 2016 at 8:15 | comment | added | tparker | I think you're being a bit hard on the asker. First of all, I suspect that (s)he was getting at something like "Are experimentally observed neutrinos generally found to be in mass eigenstates, and if so, why?" This is an interesting question and one could imagine a nontrivial but concrete answer involving quantum decoherence, the nature of the neutrino emission process, etc. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 21:05 | comment | added | anna v | @Konstantin A neutrino characterized by its paired particle is characterized because it is in a mass eigenstate during the interaction that detected it. We only detect neutrinos in mass eigenstates, and the reason we know they propagate in non mass eigenstate states is because the ratios of the type of neutrino in the beam oscillates with the time of detection. | |
| Jan 13, 2014 at 20:42 | comment | added | Konstantin Schubert | I think the core of the question was: "What do we mean when we say Neutrinos Propagate In Mass Eigenstate?" You answer is basically just nitpicking on the way the question was asked. It is hard to ask a question precisely without knowing the missing link one is looking for. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 12:29 | comment | added | anna v | @JustinL . I had to edit my tangent discussion after Lubos above cleared up that plane wave neutrinos can be in a combination of allowed mass states. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 12:27 | history | undeleted | anna v | ||
| Jun 22, 2013 at 12:26 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected
|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 11:03 | history | deleted | anna v | ||
| Jun 22, 2013 at 7:00 | history | edited | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link
|
| Jun 22, 2013 at 6:54 | comment | added | anna v | @JustinL. There can not exist something more fundamental than the hamiltonean method in physics as we know it today. The only intuition needed is a developed one for quantum mechanics. Studying k0 short k0 long might help into developing intuition . | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 5:44 | comment | added | Justin L. | Not considering the philosophy of physics, the asker is most likely asking either (1) the mathematical justification from more fundamental principles, (2) heuristical insight that might reveal some intuition, or (3) an explanation in terms of more fundamental physical principles. | |
| Jun 22, 2013 at 5:37 | history | answered | anna v | CC BY-SA 3.0 |