Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userReply to Corrections to the HARP-CDP Analysis of the LSND Neutrino Oscillation Backgrounds
94
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The alleged mistakes in recent papers that reanalyze the backgrounds to the LSND anomaly do not exist. We maintain our conclusion that the significance of the LSND anomaly is not 3.8 sigma but not larger than 2.3 sigma.
rate research
Read More
Several mistakes have been found in recent papers that purport to reanalyze the backgrounds to the LSND neutrino oscillation signal. Once these mistakes are corrected, then it is determined that the background estimates in the papers are close to (if not lower than) the LSND background estimate.
We report on the comparison of production characteristics of secondary protons and charged pions in the interactions of protons and charged pions with momentum between 3 GeV/c and 15 GeV/c with beryllium, copper, and tantalum nuclei, with simulations by the FLUKA and Geant4 Monte Carlo tool kits. Overall production cross-sections are reasonably well reproduced, within factors of two. In more detail, there are areas with poor agreement that are unsatisfactory and call for modelling improvements. Overall, the current FLUKA simulation fares better than the current Geant4 simulation.
It is said that the finding of the maximum oscillation in neutrino oscillation by Super-Kamiokande is one of the major achievements of the SK. In present paper, we examine the assumption made by Super-Kamiokande Collaboration that the direction of the incident neutrino is approximately the same as that of the produced lepton, which is the cornerstone in their L/E analysis and we find this approximation does not hold even approximately. In the Part 2 of the subsequent paper, we apply the results from Figures 12, 13 and 14 to L/E analysis and conclude that one cannot obtain the maximum oscillation in L/E analysis which shows strongly the oscillation pattern from the neutrino oscillation.
This paper reviews the results of the LSND and MiniBooNE experiments. The primary goal of each experiment was to effect sensitive searches for neutrino oscillations in the mass region with $Delta m^2 sim 1$ eV$^2$. The two experiments are complementary, and so the comparison of results can bring additional information with respect to models with sterile neutrinos. Both experiments obtained evidence for $bar u_mu rightarrow bar u_e$ oscillations, and MiniBooNE also observed a $ u_mu rightarrow u_e$ excess. In this paper, we review the design, analysis, and results from these experiments. We then consider the results within the global context of sterile neutrino oscillation models. The final data sets require a more extended model than the simple single sterile neutrino model imagined at the time that LSND drew to a close and MiniBooNE began. We show that there are apparent incompatibilities between data sets in models with two sterile neutrinos. However, these incompatibilities may be explained with variations within the systematic error. Overall, models with two (or three) sterile neutrinos seem to succeed in fitting the global data, and they make interesting predictions for future experiments.
This paper, together with a preceding paper, questions the so-called LSND anomaly: a 3.8 sigma excess of antielectronneutrino interactions over standard backgrounds, observed by the LSND Collaboration in a beam dump experiment with 800 MeV protons. That excess has been interpreted as evidence for the antimuonneutrino to antielectronneutrino oscillation in the Deltam2 range from 0.2 eV2 to 2 eV2. Such a Deltam2 range is incompatible with the widely accepted model of oscillations between three light neutrino species and would require the existence of at least one light sterile neutrino. In a preceding paper, it was concluded that the estimates of standard backgrounds must be significantly increased. In this paper, the LSND Collaborations estimate of the number of antielectronneutrino interactions followed by neutron capture, and of its error, is questioned. The overall conclusion is that the significance of the LSND anomaly is not larger than 2.3 sigma.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
