ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
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.
This paper, together with a subsequent paper, questions the so-called LSND anomaly: a 3.8 {sigma} excess of anti-electronneutrino interactions over standard backgrounds, observed by the LSND Collaboration in a beam dump experiment with 800 MeV proton
The so-called LSND anomaly, a 3.8 sigma excess of anti-nu_e events interpreted as originating from anti-nu_mu -> anti-nu_e oscillation, gave rise to many theoretical speculations. The MiniBooNE Collaboration reported inconsistency of this interpretat
We report an early result from the ICARUS experiment on the search for nu_mu to nu_e signal due to the LSND anomaly. The search was performed with the ICARUS T600 detector located at the Gran Sasso Laboratory, receiving CNGS neutrinos from CERN at an
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.
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.