Cargando…

Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis

This paper, together with a preceding paper, questions the so-called `LSND anomaly': a 3.8~$\sigma$ excess of $\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}$ interactions over standard backgrounds, observed by the LSND Collaboration in a beam dump experiment with 800~MeV protons. That excess has been interpreted as eviden...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bolshakova, A., Boyko, I., Chelkov, G., Dedovitch, D., Elagin, A., Emelyanov, D., Gostkin, M., Guskov, A., Kroumchtein, Z., Nefedov, Yu., Nikolaev, K., Zhemchugov, A., Dydak, F., Wotschack, J., De Min, A., Ammosov, V., Gapienko, V., Koreshev, V., Semak, A., Sviridov, Yu., Usenko, E., Zaets, V.
Lenguaje:eng
Publicado: 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.092009
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1401833
_version_ 1780923743161286656
author Bolshakova, A.
Boyko, I.
Chelkov, G.
Dedovitch, D.
Elagin, A.
Emelyanov, D.
Gostkin, M.
Guskov, A.
Kroumchtein, Z.
Nefedov, Yu.
Nikolaev, K.
Zhemchugov, A.
Dydak, F.
Wotschack, J.
De Min, A.
Ammosov, V.
Gapienko, V.
Koreshev, V.
Semak, A.
Sviridov, Yu.
Usenko, E.
Zaets, V.
author_facet Bolshakova, A.
Boyko, I.
Chelkov, G.
Dedovitch, D.
Elagin, A.
Emelyanov, D.
Gostkin, M.
Guskov, A.
Kroumchtein, Z.
Nefedov, Yu.
Nikolaev, K.
Zhemchugov, A.
Dydak, F.
Wotschack, J.
De Min, A.
Ammosov, V.
Gapienko, V.
Koreshev, V.
Semak, A.
Sviridov, Yu.
Usenko, E.
Zaets, V.
author_sort Bolshakova, A.
collection CERN
description This paper, together with a preceding paper, questions the so-called `LSND anomaly': a 3.8~$\sigma$ excess of $\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}$ 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 \anumtoanue\ oscillation in the $\Delta m^2$ range from 0.2~eV$^2$ to 2~eV$^2$. Such a $\Delta m^2$ 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 Collaboration's estimate of the number of $\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}$ 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~$\sigma$. \end{abstract}
id cern-1404820
institution Organización Europea para la Investigación Nuclear
language eng
publishDate 2011
record_format invenio
spelling cern-14048202023-03-14T16:37:47Zdoi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.092009http://cds.cern.ch/record/1401833engBolshakova, A.Boyko, I.Chelkov, G.Dedovitch, D.Elagin, A.Emelyanov, D.Gostkin, M.Guskov, A.Kroumchtein, Z.Nefedov, Yu.Nikolaev, K.Zhemchugov, A.Dydak, F.Wotschack, J.De Min, A.Ammosov, V.Gapienko, V.Koreshev, V.Semak, A.Sviridov, Yu.Usenko, E.Zaets, V.Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysisParticle Physics - ExperimentThis paper, together with a preceding paper, questions the so-called `LSND anomaly': a 3.8~$\sigma$ excess of $\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}$ 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 \anumtoanue\ oscillation in the $\Delta m^2$ range from 0.2~eV$^2$ to 2~eV$^2$. Such a $\Delta m^2$ 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 Collaboration's estimate of the number of $\bar{\nu}_{\rm e}$ 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~$\sigma$. \end{abstract}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 Collaboration's 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.arXiv:1112.0907CERN-PH-EP-2011-200CERN-PH-EP-2011-200oai:cds.cern.ch:14048202011-11-25
spellingShingle Particle Physics - Experiment
Bolshakova, A.
Boyko, I.
Chelkov, G.
Dedovitch, D.
Elagin, A.
Emelyanov, D.
Gostkin, M.
Guskov, A.
Kroumchtein, Z.
Nefedov, Yu.
Nikolaev, K.
Zhemchugov, A.
Dydak, F.
Wotschack, J.
De Min, A.
Ammosov, V.
Gapienko, V.
Koreshev, V.
Semak, A.
Sviridov, Yu.
Usenko, E.
Zaets, V.
Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis
title Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis
title_full Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis
title_fullStr Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis
title_full_unstemmed Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis
title_short Revisiting the 'LSND anomaly' II: critique of the data analysis
title_sort revisiting the 'lsnd anomaly' ii: critique of the data analysis
topic Particle Physics - Experiment
url https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.092009
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1401833
work_keys_str_mv AT bolshakovaa revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT boykoi revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT chelkovg revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT dedovitchd revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT elagina revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT emelyanovd revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT gostkinm revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT guskova revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT kroumchteinz revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT nefedovyu revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT nikolaevk revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT zhemchugova revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT dydakf revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT wotschackj revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT demina revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT ammosovv revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT gapienkov revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT koreshevv revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT semaka revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT sviridovyu revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT usenkoe revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis
AT zaetsv revisitingthelsndanomalyiicritiqueofthedataanalysis