Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Neutrino Mass Demonstrated

Physicists have confirmed that neutrinos, which are thought to have played a key role during the creation of the Universe, have mass.

This is the first major finding of the US-based Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (Minos) experiment.

The findings suggest that the Standard Model, which describes how the building blocks of the Universe behave and interact, needs a revision.

For more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4862112.stm

One of the smartest people I knew in grad school worked on Neutrino oscillations. At least, he did for a summer. At the end of his first summer, he walked into the office of the Prof running the project and told the Prof basicall, "I have no confidence that Neutrino oscillations will be observed in the near future. If they are, I don't think they will be oberved here."

Took a lot of guts. He was correct.

But now they have been observed.

And the consequence is that the Standard Model must fall as I think we all knew it would.

It will take a while, and a lot of agreement before the Standard Model is replaced.

So they produce a stream of Muon Neutrinos, they have no charge, therefore undeflected by anything.
Meaning that they must be incredibly Googoplex small, to be able to pass between the atomic orbits of everyday matter, and thru our Earth....would'nt you say? So how the heck is one able to be sure of perfect alignment between the Muon producer and the detector, 450 miles away buried in the Earth? Maybe some of those Neutrinos detected, have "oscillated in from space" along a similar alignment/tradgectory?
I'm not tryimg to be awkward, but I bet they got a way to go yet

Simply put ... measuring the number of detections when the muon producer is turned off ... compared with the number when it is turned on provides a simple yet accurate test.

Maybe a dumb question but:
If the neutrino carries energy there is SOME mass.
Wasn't this the origional reason for it's proposal
the "missing mass"?
The model, as I understand posits zero 'rest mass`.
The photon has zero 'rest mass` but has 'real mass`
due to the energy it carries.
Why does 'rest mass` differ from 'real mass` in this
instance?
Pragmatist
"!!I'M SO CONFUSED!!" - Vinny Barbarino 1972