Thursday, October 1, 2026

Are Neutrinos Really Massive? (And Top Quark Mass Technicalities)

Neutrino oscillation is the primary evidence for the conclusion that neutrinos have mass. And, this paradigm has been pretty successful so far (although, with six degrees of freedom, fitting the data isn't necessary too difficult). The short (five page) paper below makes the provocative argument that neutrino oscillation arises from the curvature of space-time rather than from massive neutrinos.

This would solve the problem of how neutrinos acquire mass, which is a major unsolved problem in physics, in an unexpected way: they don't. I'm skeptical, and this isn't a fully worked out idea that explains neutrino oscillation in full yet. But it is at least notable and deserves serious exploration by other researchers to see if this idea really has merit.
The Dirac equation in stationary curved spacetime implies that describing two-flavor neutrino oscillations requires treating the invariant mass and conserved energy of each propagating state distinctly, as gravity affects energy differently than mass. 
By re-analysing the publicly released KamLAND dataset, we show that modeling flavor states of massless neutrinos as two-level quantum states with energy-dependent level splitting, analogous to modified Jaynes-Cummings models, results in a higher-likelihood fit to the observed data than the standard massive-neutrino paradigm.
Golam Mortuza Hossain, Pushpit Kumar, "Neutrino Oscillations without Mass: A Re-analysis of KamLAND Data following the Dirac Equation in Curved Spacetime" arXiv:2609.39638 (September 30, 2026).

In other physics news, a preprint suggests corrections to the formula used to determine the top quark mass in one of the approaches used to do so (the introduction to the paper is also a good background discussion of the general issue addressed):

We calculate the three-loop O(αα2s) mixed QCD-EW corrections to the top quark mass and obtain the relationships between the pole (Mt) and MS bar (mt(μ)) masses at this order. 
In performing our calculation, we express the three-loop self-energies as a function of three-loop master integrals (MIs). These MIs are defined so as to solve a differential equation in ϵ-factorized form, allowing for their solution to be expressed as iterated integrals. We discuss the types of differential forms that we encounter, which include periods of elliptic curves, and their role in the final physical result. 
Using our results, we calculate the shift in mt(Mt) arising at this order. For Mt = 172.3 GeV, the shift is -216 MeV, which is comparable to the currently quoted experimental uncertainty.
Daniele Gaggero, Ciaran Williams, "O(αα2s) corrections to the Top Quark mass" arXiv:2609.40229 (September 30, 2026).

3 comments:

neo said...

Lorentz-Violating Scenarios for the Highest-Energy Photons from GRB 221009A

Abstract

A photon at ℰ≃251  TeV
from GRB 221009A was detected by the Carpet Collaboration in 2022 using a partial dataset. Very recently, Carpet has completed its full data analysis reporting further support for its previous photon now at ℰ=30⁢0+43
−38  TeV
. Within standard propagation models, this observation is in strong tension with conventional expectations since such a photon is absorbed by the CMB. Further, we show that this detection is strongly disfavored within the explored scenarios involving axionlike particles (ALPs) alone. Instead, we find that the considered photon is compatible with specific Lorentz invariant violation (LIV) frameworks with the LIV scale obeying in the linear case ℰLIV,1<1.2⁢2+0.19
−0.22×1021  GeV
at 95% CL and in the quadratic case ℰLIV,2<2.0⁢3+0.17
−0.22×1013  GeV
at 95% CL. Finally, we outline scenarios where standard photon-ALP oscillations are combined with LIV-induced modifications of photon propagation, which provide a consistent interpretation of the observations of GRB 221009A concerning the highest-energy photons detected by the LHAASO and the Carpet Collaborations

andrew said...

The author lost me at "Lorentz Violating Scenarios." The constraints on LIV are extreme, and since photons don't interact directly with other photons, the CMB mechanism has to be much more convoluted than the abstract implies. ALPs are also highly speculative. The odds of this paper being on the right track are negligible.

neo said...

Sabine Hossenfelder think that the data is fine and it might be the first evidence for quantum gravity in her video