Oscillazione dei neutrini: la teoria "stocastica" sfida Pontecorvo.

In questo video apparso qualche giorno fa su physicsworld.com viene discusso brevemente il fenomeno dell'oscillazione dei neutrini.
Volevo quindi utilizzare il pretesto di questo breve, ma sfizioso video, per parlarvi brevemente (almeno spero) di un articolo uscito qualche giorno fa su arXiv nel quale gli autori propongono un meccanismo che pare fornisca una spiegazione ad alcune delle cosiddette "anomalie" dei neutrini e nello specifico della "Gallium anomaly" (anomalia del gallio) e della "anomalia dei reattori nucleari" (per chi non avesse mai sentito parlare di queste anomalie consiglio la lettura di questo post). Essi propongono un diverso meccanismo di oscillazione che differisce dall'ipotesi originale di Pontecorvo, che è quella riassunta nel video sopra. Questo nuovo meccanismo si basa sul presupposto fenomenologico che ciò che viene identificato al momento della creazione, come per esempio un neutrino elettronico, non è unico, ma può variare per differenti neutrini prodotti in quella reazione. Ciò implica inoltre che quello che viene denominato come "neutrino elettronico" al momento della creazione possa presentarsi anche come una differente combinazione di autostati di massa di quello che si presume essere un neutrino elettronico al momento della rivelazione e quindi esso possa assumere differenti configurazioni rispetto ai parametri di mixing usuali  e cioè agli angoli di mixing  θ_{12 ,}θ_23,θ_13.

The (business) rule of Nature

“ Guest Post: Terry Rudolph on Nature versus Nurture

by Sean Carroll

Everyone always wants to know whether the wave function of quantum mechanics is “a real thing” or whether it’s just a tool we use to calculate the probability of measuring a certain outcome. Here at CV, we even hosted a give-and-take on the issue between instrumentalist Tom Banks and realist David Wallace. In the latter post, I linked to recent preprint on the issue that proved a very interesting theorem, seemingly boosting the “wave functions are real” side of the debate.

That preprint was submitted to Nature, but never made it in (although it did ultimately get published in Nature Physics). The story of why such an important result was shunted away from the journal to which it was first submitted (just like Peter Higgs’s paper where he first mentioned the Higgs boson!) is interesting in its own right. Here is that story, as told by Terry Rudolph, an author of the original paper. Terry is a theoretical physicist at Imperial College London, who “will  work on anything that has the word `quantum’ in front of it.” (continue to read on Cosmic Variance) .                                                                                                                                        ” 

New insights on the matter-gravity coupling paradigm

Back in October 1915, Albert Einstein published his revolutionary theory of gravity, General Relativity. His first version of the equations named after him were actually not compatible with local energy conservation. The second version was modified accordingly and claims that geometry is proportional to matter content. The fundamental geometric object is the so called metric, which prescribes how to measure length and time intervals. As John A. Wheeler said, 'Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.' This is the tenor of the Einstein equations. Furthermore, the metric itself is dynamical and contributes to the energy, warping the spacetime. This is encoded in the nonlinear nature of the geometrical part of the Einstein equations.

Although Einstein's equations successfully describe a lot of astrophysical or cosmological phenomena, it is worth noting that there is something missing in the theory. For instance, galactic rotation curves can be understood only by postulating the existence of some weakly interacting, nonvisible dark matter. The birth of the universe requires an inflationary period, which in turn requires new matter content. In fact, the most successfully tested sector of Einstein's theory is vacuum, as most experiments are performed outside of matter.

On another hand, it seems legitimate to wonder why an intrinsically nonlinear theory should couple linearly to the matter content. This should be valid in some regime but there is no reason to impose it. Modified theories of gravity usually propose to change the geometrical description, generally leading to strong experimental constraints. Instead, the coupling between matter and geometry is most often left unchanged. A modification of this coupling deserves a comprehensive analysis, which is the purpose of our letter 'New insights on the matter-gravity coupling paradigm.'

We were working on a particular alternative theory, namely the Eddington-inspired-Born-Infeld theory, when we realized that it can be interpreted as a standard General Relativity model, but with a modified coupling. This model was brought up to date in 2010 by Banados and Ferreira, who showed that in some situations singularity problems can be avoided. Using the reinterpretation of the model, we put forward the mechanism behind the singularity avoidance and explicitly show the effect of the coupling modification.

Even better, we provide a relation between how matter affects the geometry and how we perceive matter. Indeed, if the coupling to geometry changes, we must interpret measurements in a different way. Otherwise one is led to the (probably false) conclusion that spacetime is curved by a matter source different from the one directly seen... This sounds familiar? It should! Indeed, modified couplings are yet quite unexplored, experimentally viable, and might provide new perspectives to currently unanswered questions, e.g., mimic the new kinds of matter proposed in cosmology.

arXiv link