🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug9.053900.12400@cco.caltech.edu> brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:
>       ...            The 17 keV neutrino and the tau decay puzzle seem to
>have gone away.  However, the solar neutrino problem has become more acute;
>results from 3 detectors (GALLEX, SAGE, Kamiokande) appear to be mutually
>inconsistent,

I thought (from the CERN Courier) that the more precise tau mass from the 
Chinese helped, but did not eliminate, the tau decay puzzle.  Is there more?

I don't understand solar-nu point.  Kamiokande sees only the higher energy 
neutrinos, so it could be expected to give a different answer in two  
senses of the word: different SNU, different ratio of observed to theory. 
Further, SAGE has had trouble with calibration and precision, so their 
original number agreed with GALLEX at the 1 sigma level even though the 
numbers are very different.  Is there a new SAGE result that reduces 
their uncertainty but still gives zero?

>              as well as inconsistent with the Standard Solar Model,
>without MSW.  The Dimopoulos-Hall-Raby fermion mass ansatz with neutrinos
>is consistent with the required MSW parameters [delta-m^2, sin^2(2 theta)].

Which set?  GALLEX allowed two distinct, very narrow, ranges.  Or is this 
a broader statement that it encompasses both of them?   

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)