Side N
Four Lepton Anomalies, One Survivor
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What Happened | Super-Kamiokande (1998) and SNO (2002), for the two neutrino-deficit measurements; MicroBooNE (2025), for the two-beam sterile exclusion; LHCb’s 2021 R(K) result and its 2022 reanalysis with its companion paper, for the value that moved; the Muon g-2 Collaboration’s 2025 measurement and the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative’s 2025 prediction, for the anomaly that dissolved on the theory side; KamLAND-Zen (2025) and LEGEND-200 (2025), for the two current limits on the null search. |
| Timeline | Everything behind “What Happened”, above, plus the bibliographic dates within the INSPIRE-HEP records for LSND (2001), Majorana (1937) and Schechter and Valle (1982); and the Nobel Prize citations for 2002 and 2015. |
| The Argument | LHCb’s 2021 R(K) result and its 2022 reanalysis with its companion paper, for the measurement side of the subtraction; the Muon g-2 Collaboration’s 2025 measurement and the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative’s 2025 prediction, for the theory side. |
| What Others Add | The INSPIRE-HEP bibliographic records for Majorana (1937), Schechter and Valle (1982) and the four seesaw papers (1977–1980); MicroBooNE (2025) again, for the exclusion’s precise wording; KamLAND-Zen (2025) and LEGEND-200 (2025) again, for the null search’s two limits; and the Particle Data Group’s review of neutrino masses, mixing and oscillations together with its 2025 lepton summary table, for the six ideas the glossary explains. |
| Conclusion | MicroBooNE (2025), for the exclusion that still holds; LHCb’s 2021 and 2022 R(K) results, for the measurement that came into agreement; the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative’s 2025 prediction, for the comparison behind “no tension”; KamLAND-Zen (2025) and LEGEND-200 (2025), for the null search still standing as a limit rather than an answer. |
What the evidence base looks like
- 15Sources behind this article
- 5Sections, every one of them sourced
- 7Read in full
- 7Read at the abstract only
- 1Consulted as a bibliographic record only
| What the source is | How many | How they were read |
|---|---|---|
| The measurements and calculations behind each of the four fates | 10 | Three read in full — the two 2022 R(K) papers and the 2021 result they superseded — the rest at the abstract |
| The prize citations crediting the underlying discoveries | 2 | Both read in full, verbatim from the prize-awarding body’s own citation |
| Background and bibliographic material, consulted for context rather than for a new finding | 3 | The Particle Data Group’s review and its lepton summary table read in full; the eight historical papers behind the Majorana question and the seesaw mechanism consulted as bibliographic records only, never opened |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing