The GSI anomaly

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