1 / 136

The GSI anomaly

The GSI anomaly. Alexander Merle Max-Planck-Institute for Nuclear Physics Heidelberg Based on: H. Kienert, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, AM The GSI anomaly 0808.2389 [hep-ph] Neutrino 2008 Conf. Proc. Trento, 18.11.2008. Contents:.

keahi
Download Presentation

The GSI anomaly

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The GSI anomaly Alexander Merle Max-Planck-Institute for Nuclear Physics Heidelberg Based on: H. Kienert, J. Kopp, M. Lindner, AM The GSI anomaly 0808.2389 [hep-ph] Neutrino 2008 Conf. Proc. Trento, 18.11.2008

  2. Contents: • The Observation at GSI • The Experiment • Problems & Errors • Our more formal Treatment • One question • Conclusions

  3. 1. The Observation at GSI: Periodic modula-tion of the expect-ed exponential law in EC-decays of different highly charged ions (Pm-142 & Pr-140) Litvinov et al: Phys. Lett. B664, 162 (2008)

  4. 1. The Observation at GSI: Periodic modula-tion of the expect-ed exponential law in EC-decays of different highly charged ions (Pm-142 & Pr-140) exponential law Litvinov et al: Phys. Lett. B664, 162 (2008)

  5. 1. The Observation at GSI: Periodic modula-tion of the expect-ed exponential law in EC-decays of different highly charged ions (Pm-142 & Pr-140) periodic modulation exponential law Litvinov et al: Phys. Lett. B664, 162 (2008)

  6. 1. The Observation at GSI: Periodic modula-tion of the expect-ed exponential law in EC-decays of different highly charged ions (Pm-142 & Pr-140) Litvinov et al: Phys. Lett. B664, 162 (2008)

  7. 2. The Experiment:

  8. 2. The Experiment: See previous talk by Yuri Litvinov!

  9. 2. The Experiment: See previous talk by Yuri Litvinov! → I will only give a short summary.

  10. 2. The Experiment:

  11. 2. The Experiment: Injection of a single type of ions

  12. 2. The Experiment: Injection of a single type of ions ⇓ Storage in the Experimental Storage Ring (ESR)

  13. 2. The Experiment: Injection of a single type of ions ⇓ Storage in the Experimental Storage Ring (ESR) ⇓ Cooling (stochastic & electron)

  14. 2. The Experiment: Injection of a single type of ions ⇓ Storage in the Experimental Storage Ring (ESR) ⇓ Cooling (stochastic & electron) ⇓ Frenquency measurement (by Schottky-Pickups)

  15. 2. The Experiment: Injection of a single type of ions ⇓ Storage in the Experimental Storage Ring (ESR) ⇓ Cooling (stochastic & electron) ⇓ Frenquency measurement (by Schottky-Pickups) → due to cooling (Δv/v → 0), the fre-quency only depends on the mass over charge ratio M/Q

  16. Lifetime determination:

  17. Lifetime determination:

  18. Lifetime determination:

  19. Lifetime determination: • the lifetimes of individual ions are determined

  20. Lifetime determination: • the lifetimes of individual ions are determined • their distribution is plotted

  21. Lifetime determination: • the lifetimes of individual ions are determined • their distribution is plotted • the result is NOT only an exponential law…

  22. 3. Problems & Errors:

  23. 3. Problems & Errors: Experimental problems & oddities:

  24. 3. Problems & Errors: • Experimental problems & oddities: • low statistics:

  25. 3. Problems & Errors: • Experimental problems & oddities: • low statistics: only 2650 decays of Pr and 2740 of Pm → both fits, with the modified and pure exponential curve, are not so different (e.g. for Pm: χ2/D.O.F.=0.91 vs. 1.68)

  26. 3. Problems & Errors: • Experimental problems & oddities: • low statistics: only 2650 decays of Pr and 2740 of Pm → both fits, with the modified and pure exponential curve, are not so different (e.g. for Pm: χ2/D.O.F.=0.91 vs. 1.68) • unexplained statistical features (pointed out by us):

  27. 3. Problems & Errors: • Experimental problems & oddities: • low statistics: only 2650 decays of Pr and 2740 of Pm → both fits, with the modified and pure exponential curve, are not so different (e.g. for Pm: χ2/D.O.F.=0.91 vs. 1.68) • unexplained statistical features (pointed out by us): • If we take the data and subtract the best-fit function, the res-ulting errors are significantly SMALLER than the statistical error √N for N events.

  28. 3. Problems & Errors: • Experimental problems & oddities: • low statistics: only 2650 decays of Pr and 2740 of Pm → both fits, with the modified and pure exponential curve, are not so different (e.g. for Pm: χ2/D.O.F.=0.91 vs. 1.68) • unexplained statistical features (pointed out by us): • If we take the data and subtract the best-fit function, the res-ulting errors are significantly SMALLER than the statistical error √N for N events. → “Mann-Whitney-Test”: The probability that the remaining fluctuations are random is about 5% (a truly random list would give about 30% or so).

  29. 3. Problems & Errors: • Experimental problems & oddities: • low statistics: only 2650 decays of Pr and 2740 of Pm → both fits, with the modified and pure exponential curve, are not so different (e.g. for Pm: χ2/D.O.F.=0.91 vs. 1.68) • unexplained statistical features (pointed out by us): • If we take the data and subtract the best-fit function, the res-ulting errors are significantly SMALLER than the statistical error √N for N events. → “Mann-Whitney-Test”: The probability that the remaining fluctuations are random is about 5% (a truly random list would give about 30% or so). → the fit function seems to confuse some fluctuations with real data

  30. 3. Problems & Errors:

  31. 3. Problems & Errors: Physical errors:

  32. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations!

  33. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • neutrino oscillations:

  34. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • neutrino oscillations:

  35. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • neutrino oscillations: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve), then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei), and is then detected as FLAVOUR eigenstate

  36. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • neutrino oscillations: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve), then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei), and is then detected as FLAVOUR eigenstate → more than one way to reach THE SAME final state ve

  37. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • neutrino oscillations: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve), then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei), and is then detected as FLAVOUR eigenstate → more than one way to reach THE SAME final state ve→ amplitude is given by a COHERENT SUM:

  38. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • neutrino oscillations: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve), then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei), and is then detected as FLAVOUR eigenstate → more than one way to reach THE SAME final state ve→ amplitude is given by a COHERENT SUM:

  39. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • GSI experiment:

  40. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • GSI experiment:

  41. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • GSI experiment: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve) and then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei)

  42. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • GSI experiment: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve) and then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei) → BUT: there is no second FLAVOUR measurement

  43. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • GSI experiment: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve) and then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei) → BUT: there is no second FLAVOUR measurement→ amplitude is given by an INCOHERENT SUM:

  44. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • The process is NOT analogous to neutrino oscillations! • GSI experiment: • the neutrino is produced as FLAVOUR eigenstate (e.g. ve) and then propagates as superposition of MASS eigenstates (vi with i=1,2,3, and admixtures Uei) → BUT: there is no second FLAVOUR measurement→ amplitude is given by an INCOHERENT SUM:

  45. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • This has been done differently in:

  46. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • This has been done differently in: - Ivanov, Reda, Kienle: 0801.2121 [nucl-th] - Ivanov, Kryshen, Pitschmann, Kienle: 0804.1311 [nucl-th] - Ivanov, Kryshen, Pitschmann, Kienle: Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 182501 (2008) - Faber: 0801.3262 [nucl-th] - Lipkin: 0801.1465 [hep-ph] - Lipkin: 0805.0435 [hep-ph] - Walker: Nature 453, 864 (2008)

  47. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • This has been done differently in: - Ivanov, Reda, Kienle: 0801.2121 [nucl-th] - Ivanov, Kryshen, Pitschmann, Kienle: 0804.1311 [nucl-th] - Ivanov, Kryshen, Pitschmann, Kienle: Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 182501 (2008) - Faber: 0801.3262 [nucl-th] - Lipkin: 0801.1465 [hep-ph] - Lipkin: 0805.0435 [hep-ph] - Walker: Nature 453, 864 (2008) • Works that agree with us:

  48. 3. Problems & Errors: • Physical errors: • This has been done differently in: - Ivanov, Reda, Kienle: 0801.2121 [nucl-th] - Ivanov, Kryshen, Pitschmann, Kienle: 0804.1311 [nucl-th] - Ivanov, Kryshen, Pitschmann, Kienle: Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 182501 (2008) - Faber: 0801.3262 [nucl-th] - Lipkin: 0801.1465 [hep-ph] - Lipkin: 0805.0435 [hep-ph] - Walker: Nature 453, 864 (2008) • Works that agree with us: - Giunti: 0801.4639 [hep-ph] - Giunti: Phys. Lett. B665, 92 (2008) - Burkhardt et al.: 0804.1099 [hep-ph] - Peshkin: 0804.4891 [hep-ph] - Peshkin: 0811.1765 [hep-ph] - Gal: 0809.1213 [nucl-th] - Cohen, Glashow, Ligeti: 0810.4602 [hep-ph]

  49. 3. Problems & Errors: Further points:

  50. 3. Problems & Errors: • Further points: • wrong Δm2~10-4 eV2 → neither solar nor atmospheric Δm2

More Related