2E/|Δm²| would be huge, right? E is probably around 10 TeV, and |Δm²| on the order of 0.1 eV/c² or less. There's gotta be some significant scaling factor/proportionality constant I'm missing. Anyway, I dunno. One of the cruxes of my stance is trusting that the authors considered everything, which is a big scientific no-no. Btw, in the paper, everyone's from Penn State, which apparently has at least five different theory departments that overlap with particle physics. I found that pretty weird. There's a professor at my school that was a coauthor on the Higgs Boson paper (easy when there's thousands of coauthors), but every week, ResearchGate informs me that he was "the most cited author in the department last week, with 153 new citations" or however many, and it's just like how can I compete with that? It's a broken metric when you have one guy that takes the title every week. So that's reason #58 that I hate high energy particle physics.
Δm² is problematic because upper bound for sterile neutrino mass is something like 10^13 TeV and lower bound is "not exactly zero". Plus keep in mind that I cut everything down to obtain a first-order approximation and then used it on a wide range of values like a dumbass. Agreed.Anyway, I dunno. One of the cruxes of my stance is trusting that the authors considered everything, which is a big scientific no-no.
Yes, I'm so sorry, I very stupidly assumed that sterile neutrinos had the typical ~0.1 eV mass like that of active neutrinos.