English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

According to a 2007 paper there was no evidence for a neutrino burst of twoor more events in Super-Kamiokande (SK) during the entire period of data-takingfrom 1996 to 2005 from Andromeda or anywhere else. There is, however a scenariounder which a detectable signal could have been missed given the search methodemployed by the analysis, and it would have been found using an alternatemethod. The alternate method depends on the hypothesis that two of the neutrinomass eigenstates have masses 4.0 eV and 21.4 eV which was inferred from ananalysis of the SN 1987A data. Although one might argue that the hypothesis ofsuch large neutrino masses is remote, there is a way they could be compatiblewith observed constraints on neutrino masses involving a third tachyonic($m^2<0$) eigenstate, plus three sterile neutrinos. Given the importance of apositive supernova search result, and the ease of conducting it using existingSK data, there would seem to be little reason not to do it.

Could a reported 2007 analysis of Super-Kamiokande data have missed a detectable supernova signal from Andromeda?