It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It would have to be a different formula, wouldn't it?
Wouldn't be easier to just look up the mass in a table, instead of using the formulas above that will change whenever experimental results or observations change?
By the way here is the table that phycists use though this one is a little dated from 2010, but for neutrino mass it just says "mass m < 2eV (tritium decay)" which I would say is not only easier to just look up than crunching some numbers, but it's also more accurate since it only applies an upper bound, and the lower bound is not that well known except that it's not zero.
If as you say it's just "curve fitting" (which with the unit problems it hasn't quite done that yet either, but for the sake of argument lets say you resolve that problem), has it brought us any closer to a solution? I don't see how.
Thanks for that example, because I think it serves to illustrate the point I was trying to make. Let's say the table shows the cosine for each degree.
I personally would find it easier to look up a table. But again, look at it this way: There exist formulas to approximate the cosine for any degrees between 0 and 90 inclusively. It's far less complicated to just look up the degree's cosine in a table, but formulas exist nonetheless.
You're welcome. You may want to use the online version which is more up-to-date:
Hm, many thanks, until now I was relying on 4-year old data from Wikipedia. I can't wait to see what's new.
Speaking of condensed tables and expanded tables, that's sort of the way that reference is structured if you click the different tabs at the top.
2013 Review of Particle Physics.
Please use this CITATION: J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D86, 010001 (2012) and 2013 partial update for the 2014 edition.