|
5 -
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report - An Analysis
Missing Neutrinos
A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun
must emit a flood of electron-neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite
number of these neutrinos have been found after thirty years of
searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have
failed to find the necessary neutrino flux.
Some solar neutrinos have indeed been observed - but only one-third
the number required if the fusion reaction really is the main source
of the Sun's energy production. These negative results from the
neutrino experiments have resulted not in any re-examination of
solar models. Rather, an intense theoretical effort to discover new
properties that solar neutrinos 'must have' has occurred.
As a
result of this effort, it was announced (June 2001) by the Sudbury
Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Canada that neutrinos have mass and
can change 'flavor'. This supposedly accounts for why they have not
been fully observed previously. However, several important questions
remain to be answered about the methodology that was used by the SNO
researchers in arriving at their conclusions. Of course, whether
neutrinos actually do change type or not has no bearing whatever on
the validity of the Electric Sun model.
The neutrino problem is a
hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model
there is no energy produced in the core - radiant energy is released
at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing
neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model. The electron-neutrinos
that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at
the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen
and helium).
For decades the measured deficiency of electron-neutrinos has been a
continuing embarrassment for those who want to believe that the
accepted H-He fusion model of how the Sun produces its energy is
correct.
Because this failure to observe the predicted neutrino flux
clearly constitutes falsification of this fusion model, there has
been a great effort to explain away the observed deficit.
The Official Announcement
In June 2001, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) in Ontario,
Canada made an announcement that was joyfully hailed by proponents
of the accepted mainstream fusion model. The complete official
announcement can be viewed here .
As a result of their interpretation of the data obtained from their
experiment, SNO researchers claim that the deficit does not lie with
the fusion model, but is due to the fact that neutrinos change from
one flavor to another on their way from the center of the Sun to
Earth.
There are thought to be three flavors of neutrino:
electron-neutrinos, muon-neutrinos, and tau-neutrinos. Some of these
flavors were not measurable by the previous experiments that were
looking for them. SNO researchers claim, on the basis of their
experiment, that the measurable neutrinos turn into previously
non-measurable ones enroute from the Sun's core.
That 'oscillation',
they say, explains the previously measured shortage.
Press Releases
Press releases were filled with pronouncements of confidence that
the standard fusion reaction is indeed alive and well at the core of
the Sun. There was, however, more rejoicing than factual information
in most of these releases.
Some examples:
-
"Physicists have wrestled with the 'solar neutrino problem' since
the early 1970s, when experiments detected a shortfall of the
particles coming from the sun. The neutrino shortage meant either
that theories describing the nuclear furnace at the sun's core were
wrong, or that something was happening to the particles on their way
to Earth. Monday's announcement demonstrates with 99 percent
confidence that it is the latter."
- AP article appearing on line in
The Nando Times of June 19,
entitled "Physicists: Neutrinos have some mass," by Matt Crenson.
QUESTION: What was the basis for the “99% confidence” figure? Was
that a mathematically derived number based on a statistical analysis
- or was it just pulled out of the blue – an example of
unprofessional, non-scientific, hubris?
-
"The SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar
neutrinos are changing their type en-route to Earth, thus providing
answers to questions about neutrino properties and solar energy
generation." -
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/
QUESTION: How can the SNO team claim the ability to determine
whether something happens to neutrinos enroute from the Sun to Earth
without making measurements at the Sun (at the start of the journey)
or somewhere along the route? Or by making assumptions about how
they started out? More on this question below.
-
"SNO appears to be measuring a rate expected for all types of
neutrinos combined but a decided deficit for the electron neutrino."
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010710.html
COMMENT: This appears to be in complete contradiction with the
official announcement that states that the results of the only SNO
experiment that can measure all three flavors of neutrino will not
be announced until a later time.
Analysis of the Official Announcement
The SNO observations were only made here on Earth. No satellite
observations were made anywhere along the path, certainly not at its
beginning where the neutrinos start their journey (inside the Sun).
QUESTION:
Consider a freight train that goes from New York to
Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train
as it arrives in Chicago. It arrives with 4 freight cars, 2 tank
cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how
sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any
conclusions about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have
been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland?
Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have
mysteriously turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route
somewhere? (And do it with “99% confidence”?)
The answer must be that they are assuming they know the value of the
neutrino flux leaving the Sun. If so, this is an exercise in
circular reasoning. If they know what the solar neutrino flux
leaving the Sun is, there is no need for the experiment. The
experiment adds nothing in the way of verification of the
assumption. It certainly does not explain the low value of neutrino
flux observed here on Earth, it only confirms it.
The logic used in drawing conclusions seems to be faulty in other
ways as well.
A sentence from the conclusion of the report
In the conclusion of the Sudbury report it states:
"Comparison of the (neutrino) flux deduced from the ES reaction
assuming no neutrino oscillations, to that measured by the CC
reaction can provide clear evidence of flavor transformation without
reference to solar model flux calculations. If neutrinos from the
Sun change into other active flavors, then CC flux < ES flux."
A logical analysis of the last above sentence:
Let:
(a) = Neutrinos from the Sun change into other active flavors.
(b) = Electron-neutrino flux measurement is less than the
measurement that includes electron-neutrinos and some of the other
two types as well.
The sentence says: IF (a) is true, THEN (b) is true. No one can
disagree with that.
But they are implying: IF (b) is true, THEN (a) is true. (If the
measurement of the flux of electron-type neutrinos is less than the
more inclusive measurement that includes some of the other types,
then neutrinos from the Sun change flavor on their way to Earth.)
That is a logical non-sequitor. If the Sun is emitting all three
types of neutrinos, e+u+t, then any Earthbound experiment that
measures only e will always have a lower output than one that
measures (for example) e + 0.1u + 0.3t.
Moreover, the report states
that the CC measured value (e type only) is "significantly smaller
than the measurements by [S. Fukuda in an earlier experiment]".
So
the electron neutrino flux just measured by SNO is even lower than
previously reported levels. And it is possible that muon-neutrinos
oscillate into electron-neutrinos. And that presents a further
complication to the SNO conclusions because of the already extremely
low value of measured electron-neutrino flux.
There have been other neutrino experiments that have resulted in
unclear answers about whether neutrinos 'oscillate' into different
types. The final report of the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector
(LSND) experiment in 2001said their results strengthened previously
published, but controversial LSND results that provided evidence of
neutrino oscillation and mass.
The LSND data, collected from 1993 to
1998, suggested that muon anti-neutrinos oscillate into electron
anti-neutrinos. However the MiniBooNE project results of 2007
reported no mu-neutrino to electron-neutrino oscillations of the
sort that would explain the LSND result. MiniBooNE was designed
specifically to look for this, and has successfully ruled it out at
98% confidence level.
So it is now exceedingly doubtful that the
long sought excuse for the solar neutrino flux deficit has been
found.
A measurement that can and should be made but was not
It is regrettable that the SNO results do not address several other
pertinent questions relative to the solar neutrino flux. For
example, why does the total flux seem to be a function of the
sunspot cycle? Physicist Wal Thornhill points this out in detail in
his analysis of the neutrino problem at his
Holoscience web site.
Thornhill points out that the Electric Sun model predicts that
fluctuations in the neutrino flux will be correlated with the level
of electrical input to the Sun – that is, with such measurable
phenomena as sunspot numbers and solar wind activity.
This correlation has already been observed qualitatively. The standard
solar model cannot explain it. Neutrinos carry no electrical charge;
therefore, the usual 'hidden strange magnetic fields lurking beneath
the Sun’s surface' cannot be invoked to explain away a correlation
between neutrino flux and sunspot number if, indeed, that
correlation is real.
Any quantitative determination of a
relationship between neutrino flux and sunspot number and/or solar
wind intensity would absolutely falsify the fusion model once and
for all. And it would be further validation of the Electric Sun
model.
But it was not undertaken.
Summary
The high decibel level of rejoicing contained in the SNO
pronouncements is unprofessional. It is a clue that should not be
ignored. It stands in curious contrast to the existence of errors in
fundamental logic contained in the report. The prime requirement in
research is scientific objectivity. And (given the paucity of actual
data that was collected) there is substantial reason to question to
what extent a degree of wishful thinking went into the announced
conclusions of this report.
There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a
transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther
up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when
observations have been made at more than one place along the path!
Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to
support the SNO 2001 announcement.
Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an
objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal
that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being
solved.
And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely
falsified.
Back to
The Electric Sky
Back to
The Electric Sun
|