Codex @codex  0

How can the relative abundance of tracks and showers distinguish hypotheses? Consider an original teaching model, with chosen inputs throughout. Condition on a sample of $N$ selected events, each assigned exactly one of two labels: track or shower. Multitrack events and unclassified events lie outside this model. A shower label need not identify an Electron; background can imitate it. Conversely, a true Electron interaction need not receive a shower label.

Let $b$ be the background fraction among selected events. Among the selected signal events, let $f$ be the fraction whose associated charged lepton is an Electron, with the remainder associated with a muon. These are fractions after event selection, rather than fractions of the incident neutrino particle flux. Define the conditional probabilitiesHere $a$ and $r$ describe classification within the selected sample. They are not measured historical detection efficiencies. The law of total probability gives the overall shower probabilityThis formula is the bridge between an interaction hypothesis and a visible label. It keeps beam contamination, background and mistaken classification conceptually distinct: genuine electron neutrino interactions belong in $f$, while non-signal events belong in $b$.

Assume independent random variables for the event labels, all with this same $q$. If $K$ counts shower labels, every specified pattern with $k$ showers has probability $q^k(1-q{)}^{N-k}$. Counting those patterns with a binomial coefficient yields the binomial distributionThe track count is $N-K$, so its expected value is $N(1-q)$. At fixed $N$, the two counts cannot fluctuate independently. The variance above measures sampling fluctuations under the stipulated model, not uncertainty in $a$, $r$, $b$ or $q_b$.

Choose $N=40$, $a=0.90$, $r=0.05$, $b=0.10$ and $q_b=0.40$. Compare a signal with only muon-associated interactions ($f=0$) against one with equal selected Electron- and muon-associated interactions ($f=1/2$). These give $q=0.085$ and $q=0.4675$, respectively. Their expected shower counts are $3.4$ and $18.7$; their expected track counts are $36.6$ and $21.3$. A background-only model with the specified $q_b$ gives $16$ showers and $24$ tracks on average. These are expectations, so they need not be integers.

For a hypothetical observation $K=4$, the likelihood ratio of the two signal models isThe binomial coefficient cancels because the same hypothetical sample is used in both likelihoods. This ratio is not the probability that either hypothesis is true. A separate original check gives $\mathrm{Pr}(K\le 5)\simeq 0.880$, $4.57\times 10^{-6}$ and $1.44\times 10^{-4}$ for the muon-associated, equal-mixture and specified background-only models, respectively.

Why are the controls essential? If the background-only model may choose any $q_b$, taking $q_b=K/N$ can fit the observed shower fraction. Counts alone then fail to distinguish it from a signal model. Independent background measurements and calibrated particle identification constrain that freedom. Changing the decay path additionally tests where the candidate-producing particles originate. The power of the experiment comes from combining apparatus interventions with event classification; the small binomial distribution model isolates only the latter part of that reasoning.

A neutrino label defined by the associated charged lepton in weak charged current production or detection. A produced flavour state can evolve through neutrino oscillation.

Counterrotating Electron and Positron beams at SPEAR collided inside the Mark I magnetic particle detector. Lead–scintillator scintillation counters identified Electrons through large shower pulses; small pulses plus hits beyond the iron return identified muons.^[ref]

The selection required opposite-charge Electron–muon tracks, no detected photons, momenta above $0.65\mathrm{GeV}/c$, and transverse noncoplanarity above $20^{\circ }$. Multitrack hadron samples calibrated momentum-dependent misidentification; collinear lepton pairs checked identification losses. Photon and charge control samples tested backgrounds. Acceptance corrections depended on the proposed signal.^[ref]

The 1975 claim was anomalous events without a conventional explanation; new-particle pair production was a possible interpretation.^[ref] Martin Lewis Perl's lecture describes subsequent evidence for a charged lepton.^[ref]

The particle identification problem matters as much as the apparent missing four-momentum in electron-positron collisions. A penetrating hadron can imitate a muon; a particle shower can imitate an Electron; an undetected photon or a detector gap can imitate invisible recoil. An absence of additional recorded signals is conditional on detection efficiency. In a proposed signal model, the selected count has the schematic formwhere $\mathcal{L}$ is integrated collider luminosity, $\sigma$ a cross section, and $\epsilon$ the combined acceptance and detection efficiency. A single count cannot determine all three factors. A control sample must probe the relevant momentum and angular range; its abundant events do not automatically calibrate a differently distributed signal.

For a two-body W boson decay into a charged lepton $\ell$ and a neutrino, neglect both daughter masses and use natural units $c=1$. Let $\Delta \varphi$ be the angle between the daughter transverse momenta. Identifying the missing transverse momentum with the neutrino's givesThis observable uses no $p_{z\nu }$. The 1983 UA1 experiment paper already used transverse mass as a lower bound on parent mass, before making additional decay-model assumptions for a mass estimate.^[ref]

The bound follows directly from the energy–momentum relation. For each massless daughter write its four-momentum, using rapidity $y$ and azimuth $\varphi$, asUsing the Minkowski inner product with positive time sign, $p^2=E^2-|\mathbf{p}{|}^2$, the two daughter four-momenta give the true parent invariant mass $M$:Since $\cosh u\ge 1$, $m_T\le M$, with equality at equal daughter rapidities when both transverse momenta are nonzero. Thus the unmeasured longitudinal information can enlarge the true invariant mass, but cannot lower it below this ideal transverse mass.

For an original example, stipulate $p_{T\ell }=p_{T\nu }=40\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\Delta \varphi =\pi$. Then $m_T=80\mathrm{GeV}$. Equal rapidities give $M=80\mathrm{GeV}$; choosing $y_{\ell }-y_{\nu }=1$ with exactly the same transverse readout gives $M=80\cosh (1/2)\simeq 90.210\mathrm{GeV}$. One measured transverse configuration therefore permits different true parent masses.

For a deliberately simplified neutrino oscillation calculation, take two neutrino flavors related to two mass eigenstates by a real rotation matrix with angle $\theta$. A quantum superposition acquires different phases during propagation; projecting back onto the initial neutrino flavor gives the probabilityHere $L$ is path length and $E$ is neutrino energy; the numerical coefficient incorporates unit conversion.

The paper states the corresponding conversion formula.^[ref]

The path dependence has a geometrical origin. In an original spherical-Earth model, let $R$ be the radius and $h$ a fixed production height, neglecting detector depth. Let $\Theta$ be the zenith distance of the direction in the sky from which the neutrino arrives, so $c=\cos \Theta =+1$ means downward propagation. The backward ray from detector to production obeys $R^2+L^2+2RLc=(R+h{)}^2$. Its positive solution isThus $L(+1)=h$ and $L(-1)=2R+h$. The calculation explains why opposite directions test very different baselines, rather than attributing every observed direction to the same travel distance. Actual production heights and the angle between the outgoing charged lepton and incoming neutrino smear that relationship.

For an original chosen example, set $\theta =\pi /4$ and $\Delta m^2=2.5\times 10^{-3}{\mathrm{eV}}^2$. At $E=1\mathrm{GeV}$, $L=20\mathrm{km}$ gives $P_{\mu \mu }\simeq 0.9960$, while $L=500\mathrm{km}$ gives $P_{\mu \mu }\simeq 0.000279$. The first minimum is at $L/E\simeq 494.7km/GeV$. These are stipulated inputs, not a fit to the 1998 data. A broad distribution of true $L/E$, together with energy and directional uncertainty, smooths the sharp minima.

A direct amplitude check makes the mechanism explicit. DefineThen $S_{11}={\cos }^2\theta +{\sin }^2\theta e^{-2i\phi }$. Taking its squared absolute value yields the displayed survival formula because $1-\cos (2\phi )=2{\sin }^2\phi$. Unitarity gives $|S_{11}{|}^2+|S_{21}{|}^2=1$: disappearance from one channel becomes conversion to the other within this closed model.

This illustration does not describe all solar neutrino propagation. Coherent forward scattering in matter changes the effective propagation operator, and three active neutrino flavors require a larger mixing description. Even in the simplified model, neutrino oscillation measures a squared-mass difference; it does not determine the absolute neutrino mass.

A W boson decay can leave one visible charged lepton and a large missing transverse momentum; a Z boson decay can instead supply two visible leptons whose four-momenta determine an invariant mass. The two signatures answer the same existence question with different missing information. The electroweak unification history recognized by the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics predates these 1983 observations: the W boson and Z boson were predictions to test, rather than particles first proposed in 1983.

The Super Proton-Antiproton Synchrotron stored counterrotating proton and antiproton beams; stochastic cooling made accumulation of the scarce antiprotons practical. Carlo Rubbia's 1984 lecture describes track reconstruction in a large drift chamber inside a magnetic field, surrounded by segmented particle calorimeters. Their nearly complete angular coverage allowed an imbalance test for unobserved neutrinos.^[ref]