Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userWhat we (would like to) know about the neutrino mass
176
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We present updated values for the mass-mixing parameters relevant to neutrino oscillations, with particular attention to emerging hints in favor of theta_13>0. We also discuss the status of absolute neutrino mass observables, and a possible approach to constrain theoretical uncertainties in neutrinoless double beta decay. Desiderata for all these issues are also briefly mentioned.
rate research
Read More
String theory has transformed our understanding of geometry, topology and spacetime. Thus, for this special issue of Foundations of Physics commemorating Forty Years of String Theory, it seems appropriate to step back and ask what we do not understand. As I will discuss, time remains the least understood concept in physical theory. While we have made significant progress in understanding space, our understanding of time has not progressed much beyond the level of a century ago when Einstein introduced the idea of space-time as a combined entity. Thus, I will raise a series of open questions about time, and will review some of the progress that has been made as a roadmap for the future.
The participants in this discussion session of the QCHS 9 meeting were each asked the following question: What would be the most useful piece of information that you could obtain, by whatever means, that would advance your own program, and/or our general understanding of confinement? This proceedings contains a brief summary of each panel members contribution to the discussion, provided by the panel members themselves.
In the present paper, we investigate the cosmographic problem using the bias-variance trade-off. We find that both the z-redshift and the $y=z/(1+z)$-redshift can present a small bias estimation. It means that the cosmography can describe the supernova data more accurately. Minimizing risk, it suggests that cosmography up to the second order is the best approximation. Forecasting the constraint from future measurements, we find that future supernova and redshift drift can significantly improve the constraint, thus having the potential to solve the cosmographic problem. We also exploit the values of cosmography on the deceleration parameter and equation of state of dark energy $w(z)$. We find that supernova cosmography cannot give stable estimations on them. However, much useful information was obtained, such as that the cosmography favors a complicated dark energy with varying $w(z)$, and the derivative $dw/dz<0$ for low redshift. The cosmography is helpful to model the dark energy.
Shaping axi-symmetric planetary nebulae is easier if a companion interacts with a primary at the top of the asymptotic giant branch. To determine the impact of binarity on planetary nebula formation and shaping, we need to determine the central star of planetary nebula binary fraction and period distribution. The short-period binary fraction has been known to be 10-15% from a survey of ~100 central stars for photometric variability indicative of irradiation effects, ellipsoidal variability or eclipses. This survey technique is known to be biased against binaries with long periods and this fact is used to explain why the periods of all the binaries discovered by this survey are smaller than 3 days. In this paper we assess the status of knowledge of binary central stars discovered because of irradiation effects. We determine that, for average parameters, this technique should be biased against periods longer than 1-2 weeks, so it is surprising that no binaries were found with periods longer than 3 days. Even more puzzling is the fact that 9 out of 12 of the irradiated binaries, have periods smaller than one day, a fact that is starkly at odds with post-common envelope predictions. We suggest that either all common envelope models tend to overestimate post-common envelope periods or that this binary survey might have suffered from additional, unquantified biases. If the latter hypothesis is true, the currently-known short-period binary fraction is put in serious doubt. We also introduce a new survey for binary-related variability, which will enable us to better quantify biases and determine an independent value for the short period binary fraction.
Mass loss rate formulae are derived from observations or from suites of models. For theoretical models, the following have all been identified as factors greatly influencing the atmospheric structure and mass loss rates: Pulsation with piston amplitude scaling appropriately with stellar L; dust nucleation and growth, with radiation pressure and grain-gas interactions and appropriate dependence on temperature and density; non-grey opacity with at least 51 frequency samples; non-LTE and departures from radiative equilibrium in the compressed and expanding flows; and non-equilibrium processes affecting the composition (grain formation; molecular chemistry). No one set of models yet includes all the factors known to be important. In fact, it is very difficult to construct a model that can simultaneously include these factors and be useful for computing spectra. Therefore, although theoretical model grids are needed to separate the effects of M,L,R and/or $T_{mathrm{eff}}$ or Z on the mass loss rates, these models must be carefully checked against observations. Getting the right order of magnitude for the mass loss rate is only the first step in such a comparison, and is not sufficient to determine whether the mass loss formula is correct. However, there are observables that do test the validity of mass loss formulae as they depend directly on $dlog dot M/dlog L$, $dlog dot M/dlog R$, or $dlog dot M/dlog P$.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
