I guess “infinute” is not a typo or maybe it is a freudian slip ?

Your ideas are interesting but expensive! HEP does not have nearly that kind of dough. The moon will be colonized for other purposes than counting neutrino cross sections, and as for Mercury, it’s a great idea to think about exploring it, but it does not seem to be in the agenda…

Cheers,
T.

Which is why Ting and about 500 other people, including Michael Salamon at NASA HQ, spent over a gigabuck building an antinucleus detector to fly in the Space Station. If it detected a single, say, anti-iron nucleus, that would strongly imply an antistar making anti-iron by antinucleosynthesis and dispersing it when it went antisupernova. But NASA in its infinute wisdom has decided not to fly the experiment, on the basis that all remaining Shuttle flights are needed to finish building the ISS, which won’t do any science. Or something.

I’d long ago proposed neutrino detectors on the Moon, to give a longer baseline for neutrino oscillation experiments.

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Sensors.html

and

“Mercury polar ice could provide neutrino detection opportunities…”
http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerFutures/SpacePublications/Mercury_Ice.html

I checked your site, but it either does not load well or I am missing something. Will check back tomorrow.

Cheers,
T.

I disagree about the “evidence for oscillations below 500 MeV”. They simply stated their low energy data is harder to understand, and took it off their analysis. But in fact, the excess at low energy cannot be fit by any oscillation parameters, because the points rise too steeply.

Give MiniBoone time, and they will have a statement about those data points. So far, it is much too early to say anything, if they themselves have nothing to say – they were honest enough to show the data as it was coming out of the box, without further filtering of what they feel they do not understand well.

Cheers,
T.

Hence LSND and MiniBooNE are consistent if one accepts that neutrino mass scale depends on its energy as TGD strongly suggests. For details see the posting at my blog page.

Matti Pitkanen

Today the MiniBooNE collaboration released their first year results. For the press release, check here. For a full explanation, see that guest post at Cosmic Variance, or this one by Tommaso Dorigo. According to the…

http://catherinemarie.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/finding-out-the-truth-of-the-universe-by-recreating-the-big-bang-bringing-creation-and-evolution-together-with-youtube-videos/

There are a total of four very short unaddressed points by me that are attatched to this linked article, which address the point in language that changes what “we really know” if the unproven cosmological model that is ***assumed***… is not in effect.

I realize that there are some minor errors, for example in the second sentence of the first post, I said; In Einstein’s static model, G=0 when there is no matter.

In this case, it would have been more to the point to say, “when there is no *pressure*:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html

Tommasso, I aplogize for hijacking this thread for which there was a more appropriate place.
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/guest-post-amedeo-balbi-dark-energy-for-beginners/

Unless your talking about the fact that the universe is “undeniably”, (per L. Susskind), observed to be strongly anthropically constrained. In which case, dogma rules the brain, my friend, and I’m not the first to say that, nor am I the last, since Paul Davies most recent book came out, he has also publicly stated his observation about willful *ideological* ignorance.

Carter called it, “anticentrist dogma”, and trust me, it lives in the hearts of individuals as well as via mass “anti-hysteria”.

/rant, and I’m sorry… but I leave an open challenge to that claim on my blog.

DB, I will post about it tomorrow, if I find the slides shown today – I would like to discuss the result in more detail. In a line here, the oscillation of muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos with values of delta_m squared and sin_2theta squared within the bounds of the LSND anomaly (blue region in the plots above) would fight the other, much better established, results on atmospheric and solar neutrinos. Since LEP established that only three neutrino species have weak couplings (by measuring the “invisible” width of the Z boson), there remains to invoke the oscillation of neutrinos into a sterile kind, or an even steeper difference in masses between neutrinos and antineutrinos. Sorry for the lack of clarity, will expiate tomorrow.

Island, you trust me too much – my prediction was based on my belief that taken singly, scientists can be completely honest, but large gatherings of scientists will naturally tend to deviate from the virtuous line to seek common good. I failed, apparently. But I will keep my dime this time.

D, thank you for the link. It is a good source of information.

Cheers,
T.

Scientists from the Universities of Liverpool and Glasgow have completed work on the inner heart of an experiment which seeks to find out what has happened to all the antimatter created at the start of the Universe. Matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts in the Big Bang but somehow the antimatter disappeared resulting in the Universe, and everything in it, including ourselves, being made of the remaining matter.

Um… didya try looking in the *****rarefied***** vacuum?

I find this article to be as silly as it is interesting if what I said here is valid, and so I have to wonder when and if anybody is ever going to get a clue:

http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/guest-post-amedeo-balbi-dark-energy-for-beginners/#comment-32695

http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1025099

One long-bet and a couple of vacations to far away countries has Dorigo digging in his pockets for spare betting change.

5 minutes til 11:00, and I wouldn’t bet against you, even if my name was Distler…