/sci/ - Science & Math

ok

bump

2/2

>The concept of lepton-number conservation was derived from experiment, and originally had no theoretical explanation behind it. In the 1970s, the newly developed standard model of high-energy physics offered some insight: given the particles assumed to exist in the standard model and the rules by which it is constructed, it is actually impossible to violate lepton-number conservation. The standard model was barely in place before physicists started trying to go beyond it. They wanted to build a unified theory that would motivate the existence of elementary particles and forces, rather than just describing them, as the standard model does. In this more ambitious framework — optimistically dubbed ‘grand unification’ — lepton-number conservation is not automatic. Thus, a new perspective emerged: lepton number should be very nearly conserved in nature because it is exactly conserved in the well-tested standard model; but it should be very slightly violated by the effects of grand unification. If lepton number is not conserved, it no longer provides a way of distinguishing a neutrino from an antineutrino. They could, in fact, be two forms of the same particle. This particle has one state that spins one way and another state that spins the other way, just like a particle with mass, such as the electron. So, if lepton number is not conserved, neutrinos could have mass. But this mass can only be very small, because it arises from effects that are absent in the standard model.

so he's arguing they're majorana fermions? is that still a good theory? doesn't that go against the see-saw theories?

why does everything this guy says sound like he memorized a lame script and is having autism-related troubles performing it for the audience?

dude is clearly either bullshitting, or he's borderline schizo evil maniac