🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.105048.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>, hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
>  Below this David Brahm's article:
> 
>>X-News: tnclus sci.physics:11506
>>From: brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm)
>>Subject:Re: Neutrino rumor
>>Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 00:19:11 GMT
>>Message-ID:<1992May20.001911.3915@cco.caltech.edu>
>>
>>Wow, my own personal thread!  OK, here's everything I know now:
>>
>>Someone analyzed old Fermilab neutrino-beam data, and saw a statistically
>>significant dozen or so events in which 2 neutral-current interactions
>>(i.e. no charged leptons) were separated by about 30 cm (1 ns).  Thus:
>>
>>      nu_mu                  X                 nu?
>> -->----+-------+------------>------------+------>-----
>>        Z        Z                         Z
>>        Z         Z    q (to jets)          Z    q (to jets)
>>        Z          Z--<                      Z--<
>>     (target)          qbar (to jets)            qbar (to jets)
>>
>>Since the final neutrino is not actually seen, we only assume it's there to
>>conserve fermion number.  Thus we assume X is undergoing a 3-body weak
>>decay, with some small mixing angle, say theta=.01 .  Gamma ~ theta^2 m^5,
>>so by comparison to muon decay (tau = 2000 ns, m = .1 GeV) we guess m_X =
>>2.5 GeV or so.
>>

I believe that you are referring to the CCFR neutrino beam experiment.
According to my prof (one of the leaders of this collaboration), these
results were due to a faulty analysis of the events. The results were
retracted at the HEP conference in Dallas.

(standard disclaimer)

Sam Silverstein