Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The missing neutrino problem solved - Physics Reunited

  1. Jul 2, 2004 #1
    Introduction to the Neutrino Report




    Their was a calculation done about 50 years ago that showed that 1/3 of the neutrino’s from the nuclear reaction of the sun were missing(they measured the neutrino’s from Sun and their were 1/3 less than their should have been from theoretical calculations).

    The US government under the impression that a nuclear discovery could be made if truly their was 1/3 of neutrinos really missing, and put Dr. John Bachall in charge of checking all calculations, and to develop a very accurate sensor for sensing neutrinos.

    After spending 30 years checking all calculations and building the most accurate neutrino sensor, Dr John Bachall said “yes, 1/3 of the neutrinos are missing from Sun’s nuclear reaction”!

    Now upon a close examination of the missing neutrino problem, come to find out that there are many different energy levels of neutrinos and Dr. John Bachall only measured a few of many different neutrino energy levels and assumed the rest of many different energy levels of neutrinos also had 1/3 less than they should.

    So they came to think that neutrinos had mass and the high energy level Dr. Bachall was measuring 1/3 of them were oscillating with lower energy neutrinos, on the way here from the Sun, thus Dr. Bachall measured 1/3 less of the high energy neutrinos, but the low energy level neutrinos, that he didn’t check, could have 1/3 more.

    Now to check the low energy neutrinos, they built Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada (SNO), and even though the numbers were not quit as they expected, they though they were close enough to say, 1/3 of neutrinos are not missing but, 1/3 of high energy neutrinos are oscillating and buy the time they reach Earth from Sun are low energy neutrinos (but couldn’t account for 100% of neutrinos).


    During this time (1987) their was a Super Nova and the neutrinos of explosion and light of explosion arrived at Earth the same time and since light has no mass, neutrinos also must have no mass or they would have arrived at different times.

    So if neutrinos have no mass they can’t be oscillating (they must have mass to oscillate), so what is going on here?

    A new definition of light must be introduced “Light is gravitational pull being vibrated, and has no mass”. Now with my new definition of light you would expect a change of energy of neutrinos. If a long rope hanging from high point, and the high point represented the gravitational flux at Sun (tight rope) and loose end, the gravitational flux at Earth, you would expect if you plucked the rope at high point that sent a wave down the rope, the nature of wave would change by the time it reached the loss end.



    So we are right back where we started from, 1/3 of neutrino are missing from Sun and I say that their is a thing called nuclear force crystal in the core of Sun that is stopping 1/3 of neutrinos (this is atoms that instead of normal chemical bonds, under high pressure have nuclear bonds between nucleases and electron s go around the hole thing making magnetic field), and with its high density can stop a percentage of neutrinos (we don’t know any normal material that will stop a large percentage of neutrinos as they can go through Earth).

    I say this nuclear force crystal in core of Sun stops 1/3 of neutrinos on Sun for 11 years and reaches threshold then erupts into Solar Flare and magnetic field of Sun changes, and the same thing happened on Earth (nuclear force crystal in core of Earth reaches threshold and erupts) until the crust got thick stopping eruptions, now we go into ice age during this transition period)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 3, 2004 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    WMAP results would dispute those conclusions. Show the math that matches those [and companion] observations and i will be all ears [er, monitor].
     
  4. Jul 3, 2004 #3
    Mathematical Proof

    I have a Mathematical proof, I calulated the threshold that the Core of Sun reaches per cubic mile of Suns core(The Sun core stores neutrinos for 11 years and can't hold any more and erupts into Solar Flare) divided by 28 (less for Earths gravity to erupt), then calculated the how long it would take Earths core to reach this threshold as Earths core stops .3% neutrinos coming from Sun and I got about 100,000 years, or about the time it took the magnetic field of Earth to reverse before Earths crust got thick.( See Dr Cox magnetic field chart(using radioactive argon), up to about a million years ago the Earths magnetic changed at a steady beat of a little less than 100,000 years)
     
  5. Jul 3, 2004 #4
    [q]During this time (1987) their was a Super Nova and the neutrinos of explosion and light of explosion arrived at Earth the same time and since light has no mass, neutrinos also must have no mass or they would have arrived at different times.
    [/q]

    Right there is your fatal flaw. The neutrinos arrived slightly before the light because they were emitted a good deal of time before the actual supernova occured.

    Additionally, if you do some more research you will find that we have shown that neutrinos do have mass and have resolved the solar-neutrino paradox as it were.
     
  6. Jul 3, 2004 #5
    neutrinos have no mass

    We are talking in the range of 100,000 light years distance from super nova! If neutrinos had mass the neutrinos from super nova(which was recorded at two neutrino observatory's) and the light(seeing super nova explode which took 3 hours for it to be big enough to see) would not have arrived at same time.
     
  7. Jul 4, 2004 #6

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Neutrinos could escape from the superdense plasma of the supernova hours before the light curve went up. It takes only a couple of minutes for neutrinos from the sun's core to exit into space, but light from the core takes thousands of years to reach the photosphere.

    The speed the light curve went up has nothing to do with neutrino timing.
     
  8. Jul 5, 2004 #7

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Assume (some) neutrinos have mass. Assume they escape from the collapsing core of an SN seconds to hours before the star goes SN in the visual. Assume Earth-bound telescopes - neutrino and photon - detect an SN 100k pc away, with the neutrinos being recorded minutes before the photons.

    Q1: what is the upper limit of the mass of the neutrinos, for these assumptions to be self-consistent?
    Q2: how does this upper limit compare with estimates of the mass of the neutrino, from decades' long observations of the Sun's neutrinos (etc)?
     
  9. Jul 7, 2004 #8
    This is Absolute Proof - Ice Age will start first in North Eastern America

    The heat of neutrinos being blocked in core of Earth keeps the Earths crust at about 65 degrees. Now I say their is a threshold that once reached, the core for a period of time stops blocking neutrinos and crust temperature drops causing an Ice Age(as magnetic field of Earth reverses).

    Now since 1/5 of energy of nuclear power plant's is neutrinos, wouldn't make sense for the Earth's core around the North East America where most Nuclear reactors are, would reach it's threshold first and go into Ice First? Isn't that what is happening right now, the average temperature is dropping and you are about to see the actual proof.
     
  10. Jul 7, 2004 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Wouldn't the neutrino flux kill the tortoises and cause the earth to fall to the bottom of the universe?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2004
  11. Jul 8, 2004 #10
    Dr Dale Cox had his Doctors in Einstein's theory and he was a good teacher

    Dr Dale Cox had his Doctors in Einstein's Theory and he was a good teacher, and didn't talk down to people. Although a different Dr Cox that made magnetic field chart of Earth using radioactive Argon method.
    He would start out (not like I did, since I know I can talk down to people) in my responses so far.

    He would have started out, you are right, Mathematical proof must be looked at first.

    Also right let's go into how much mass a neutrino could have, and with this mass how close could the neutrino come to speed of light with energy it has.

    And with that mass how long would it take to travel 100,000 light years.
    It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, the important thing is knowing enough to pull out the math and as teacher he would go through the math.

    See the important thing is you continue to learn.

    Now we have a crisis here and I am developing synthetic food using electricity (from natural gas or nuclear power) and will be going to chemistry web site.

    The mistake I made when talking to Dr Cox was being found of Anti – matter.
    Dr Cox said ‘ time can slow down, and stop at speed of light, but go backward , this goes against Einstein, and right Einstein’s theory doesn’t explain everything, but to go against Einstein , you don’t know how solid the theory is.

    Einstein proved light has no mass.
     
  12. Jul 8, 2004 #11

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A belated welcome to Physics Forums DrDaleCoxStudent!

    Regarding those calculations*; let's imagine that Dr Dale Cox did indeed have a good understanding of SR, and taught his student (you?) well (and that this student has a senior high school maths capability). Then Q1 would be a piece of cake for such a student, even if he needed to look up the formulae (and their domains of applicability) it shouldn't take more than an hour or so to answer.

    Q2 requires some familiarity with how to find good answers on the internet, e.g. how to google and tell if a site that comes up delivers the goods, so to speak. Let's be generous, maybe another hour?

    It's OK to have a go and find that there's a mistake, at least you will have tried to work something out for yourself! :approve:

    *Assume (some) neutrinos have mass. Assume they escape from the collapsing core of an SN seconds to hours before the star goes SN in the visual. Assume Earth-bound telescopes - neutrino and photon - detect an SN 100k pc away, with the neutrinos being recorded minutes before the photons.

    Q1: what is the upper limit of the mass of the neutrinos, for these assumptions to be self-consistent?
    Q2: how does this upper limit compare with estimates of the mass of the neutrino, from decades' long observations of the Sun's neutrinos (etc)?
     
  13. Jul 19, 2004 #12
    Einstein proved light has no mass and standing on that foundation, since neutrinos and photons arrived on Earth at same time, neutrinos have no mass.

    The disagreement is you think that their was a differance in time that of when the neutrinos arrived and the light arrived. if their was a differance you might look at a mass possibility. The neutrinos arrived at same time as photons, it took a little time for the explosion to be big enough to be seen.

    So it is as simple as neutrino speed = photon speed

    Lets look at how Einstein proved light has no mass, give me some time, or look it up yourself. How could something of higher frequency than light have more mass? The higher the frequency the higher the energy. The higher the mass the lower the frequency. Something that had more mass than light would have a lower frequency.
     
  14. Jul 19, 2004 #13
    Neutrinos do have mass, and they do oscillate. This is generally accepted now due to the SNO experiment (in which my supervisor was involved) and the K2K experiment in Japan. So the solar neutrino puzzle is assumed to be solved.
    This contravenes pretty much everything I know about neutrinos. There is no way neutrinos could be blocked inside the Earth's core; a neutrino can pass through light years of lead without being absorbed. That the Earth's core doesn't block neutrinos can be shown by measuring solar neutrinos as they pass through the Earth.
     
  15. Jul 19, 2004 #14
    I say there is, due to pressure in the core of Earth a thing called nuclear force crystal. This is instead of chemical bonds, nuclear bonds between nucleases so tight it can stop a small percent neutrinos and that the electrons have to orbit around the whole crystal. That is what we see, a magnetic field of Earth from current flow of orbiting electrons going around the nuclear force crystal.
     
  16. Jul 20, 2004 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Ouch. You need to let go of the force crystal thing. Solving one mystery with an even bigger mystery is not a step in the right direction.
     
  17. Jul 20, 2004 #16
    That nuclear force crystal thingy sounds much like the stuff neutron stars are made of. The implications of something like that being in the core of the sun, let alone the earth, are far too great to be yet undetected. Since no such thing was detected, one must conclude that it is not there.

    Edit: regarding neutrinos and photons suposedly arriving at the same time during that SN event. As you say yourself, it took 3 hours (!) for the SN to get photonically bright enough. Surely, the neutrinos weren't just a short burst either (and even if they were - it doesn't really matter). So there is absolutely no guarantee that the neutrinos that arrived at the same time as the photons have left at the same time. As has been said, they could have easily left hours earlier. In other words, that does not prove they were traveling at the same speed, and therefore it does not prove they do not have mass.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2004
  18. Jul 21, 2004 #17
    Not only do I predict nuclear force crystal but have a mathematical foundation. The Sun changes or reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. Using that threshold I have come up with the rate of change of Earths magnetic field.

    According to Dr Dale Cox ”a new theory must not only explain the scientific data but also predict something new”
     
  19. Jul 21, 2004 #18
    Not only do I predict nuclear force crystal but have a mathematical foundation. The Sun changes or reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. Using that threshold I have come up with the rate of change of Earths magnetic field.

    According to Dr Dale Cox ”a new theory must not only explain the scientific data but also predict something new”
     
  20. Jul 22, 2004 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Dr. Cox is correct. Predictions, however, arise from the mathematical model, not observation. You can attempt to reverse engineer the process, but, the resulting theory is usually bad science.
     
  21. Jul 22, 2004 #20

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Footnote: the obvious explanation as to why supernova produced neutrinos arrive before the photons is they were produced before the photons.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The missing neutrino problem solved - Physics Reunited
  1. Need a problem solved (Replies: 4)

  2. Problem solving (Replies: 11)

  3. Help solving problem (Replies: 7)

Loading...