Estimating Neutrino Flux Through Your Body?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the flux of neutrinos passing through the human body, given a specific energy density from the Big Bang. The problem involves considerations of neutrino properties, such as their temperature and whether they are relativistic or non-relativistic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of assuming neutrinos are relativistic versus non-relativistic, with some attempting calculations based on these assumptions. There are questions about the surface area of the human body used in the problem and its implications for the flux calculation.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided calculations based on the assumption of ultra-relativistic neutrinos, while others question the validity of the assumptions regarding neutrino mass and velocity. There is an ongoing exploration of the correct interpretation of the problem and the parameters involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential discrepancies in the assumed surface area of the human body and discuss the implications of neutrino velocity on their classification as relativistic or non-relativistic. The discussion reflects uncertainty regarding the assumptions made in the problem setup.

Joeseye
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
1. Problem

"Estimate the flux of neutrinos passing through your body per second if the present energy density of neutrinos from the Big Bang is 0.2 MeV/m3. Assume that you are a standard size covering 0.01 m2".

Homework Equations



nv = Uv(T) / <Ev>

The Attempt at a Solution



I've assumed that the neutrinos have a temperature of 1.95 K. Now I'm not sure whether to presume that the neutrinos are relativistic (hence, zero mass and velocity of c) or non-relativistic (i.e. mv < 1 eV), since the question does not specify. Although I believe the Tv = 1.95 K value comes from assuming neutrinos are massless (I think).

I've attempted both and have different answers (although I doubt whether they are correct). Regardless, I've not had much success converting the neutrino density to a flux density. I assume that the neutrinos are traveling in all directions with the same velocity.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can assume that the neutrinos are ultra-relativistic, I think.

A human body with 0.01m^2 surface area is... strange.
 
mfb said:
You can assume that the neutrinos are ultra-relativistic, I think.

A human body with 0.01m^2 surface area is... strange.

I thought that 0.01 m2 was quite low, too. Perhaps he meant 0.1 m2.

Assuming the neutrinos are ultra-relativistic I got a flux of 1.19 x 1017 m-2 s-1... which I'm pretty sure is higher than the solar neutrino flux. o_O

I used:

Flux ϕ = (c . uv(T)) / (3 . <Ev>) = (c . uv(T)) / (3 . kB . T)

The factor of 1/3 comes from assuming the neutrinos are isotropic. Essentially, this is the power density (which is c/3 times the radiation pressure uv(T)) divided by the average energy of a neutrino <Ev>.

Do you think this is correct?
 
Last edited:
Flux should be something "per time*area".

2K correspond to about .5meV, therefore we have ρ=0.4*10^9 primordial neutrinos per m^2, moving at nearly the speed of light. Using only one direction, the flux is 1/2 ρ c or about 10^17/(m^2*s).
Looks good.

Those neutrinos are hard (or even impossible) to detect as they have a very low energy.
 
mfb said:
Flux should be something "per time*area".

Ah yeah. Sorry I meant neutrinos per meter squared per second - I'll edit my post.

Thanks for your reply. Is it appropriate to assume the neutrinos are traveling at a velocity of c and are massless? I thought that when neutrinos decoupled (2s after the Big Bang) they had a velocity close to c, but have since slowed to approximately 105 - 106 m s-1?
 
If they are slow, they are not relativistic - with 2K, they would need some significant mass to be so slow.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K