🚀 go-pugleaf

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> 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?

The discrepancy seems to have been reduced to about 2 sigma, depending on
just how the analysis is done...

> I don't understand solar-nu point.  Kamiokande sees only the higher energy 
> neutrinos, so it could be expected to give a different answer...

Sorry, I left out Homestake Mine, Davis's original chlorine experiment.
One is tempted to say we've overestimated the core T of the sun a bit, so
Homestake and Kamiokande see fewer (high-E) neutrinos, and SAGE and GALLEX
just see pp neutrinos.  The problem is that Kamiokande sees only the 8-B
neutrinos, and so is _more_ sensitive to T than Homestake (which sees 8-B
and 7-Be), but in fact the Homestake result has the greater deficit.  So
even this explanation (which contradicts Bahcall) is not consistent.

The new SAGE result is: 50 SNU in '91, 85 SNU in '92, 58 (+7 -24) overall.
One is tempted to throw out the '91 data, but there's no justification.
Combining all SAGE + GALLEX gives 56 (+12 -13), compared to 132 (theory).

I had written:
> The Dimopoulos-Hall-Raby fermion mass ansatz with neutrinos is consistent
> with the required MSW parameters [delta-m^2, sin^2(2 theta)].
and Jim wrote:
> Which set?  GALLEX allowed two distinct, very narrow, ranges.  Or is this 
> a broader statement that it encompasses both of them?

It covered both.

--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  -- David Brahm
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@cco.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---------------------------
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  | Disclaimer:  I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. |   for the sensible folks.