The missing neutrino problem solved - Physics Reunited

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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)

 

[Chronos]

WMAP results would dispute those conclusions. Show the math that matches those [and companion] observations and i will be all ears [er, monitor].

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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)

 

[Brad_Ad23]

[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.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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.

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)?

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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.

 

[Chronos]

Wouldn't the neutrino flux kill the tortoises and cause the Earth to fall to the bottom of the universe?

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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!

*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)?

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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 difference in time that of when the neutrinos arrived and the light arrived. if their was a difference 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

Let's 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.

 

[zefram_c]

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.

The heat of neutrinos being blocked in core of Earth keeps the Earths crust at about 65 degrees

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.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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.

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[alpha_wolf]

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.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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”

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

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”

 

[Chronos]

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.

 

[Chronos]

Footnote: the obvious explanation as to why supernova produced neutrinos arrive before the photons is they were produced before the photons.

 

[Nereid]

Footnote: the obvious explanation as to why supernova produced neutrinos arrive before the photons is they were produced before the photons.

Which is consistent with good models of core collapse SN ('good' = 3D; the early 1D models - IIRC - couldn't make an SN of a core collapse; the core shock bounce never made it to the surface).

DrDaleCoxStudent: are you going to give us 'back of the envelope' calculation of the neutrino's mass, based on the assumptions in my earlier post?

 

[alpha_wolf]

According to Dr Dale Cox ”a new theory must not only explain the scientific data but also predict something new”

True, but before making any predictions, it must first explain the scientific data. The density of that stuff you're suggesting must be huge. How do you explain the fact that none of that has been detected in the core of the sun or earth, despite the fact we have measured the sun's mass, and even more so - despite the numerous density measurements done on the Earth (using sismological methods and maybe others)?

 

[Nereid]

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”

Without wishing to bore readers too much by saying much the same as what alpha_wolf said, it's not enough to explain just one set of data (the 11 year solar cycle; which is actually a 22 year cycle), you have to 'explain' all the pertinent data within the domain of your new idea. In your case, this would include not only the observed density profile of the Sun (as alpha_wolf said), but also (just some examples):
- energy output
- neutrino emission
- evolutionary history, including lifetime
- composition (H, He, 'metals')
... and not just for the Sun, but for all main sequence stars.

Further, it's not enough to simply assert that you 'predict nuclear force crystal but have a mathematical foundation', you need to publish it and have it stand the scrutiny of the community.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

Lower Neutrino count due to Nuclear Force Crystal

The Japanese have noticed a slight lower than normal neutrino count at night coming from Sun (See book Solar Neutrinos by John Bachall)

 

[Nenad]

arent they doing an experiment in France right now on neutrinos. The set up next to a nuclear power plant, and measured the energy of the neutrinos when they are first produced in the reaction. Then they set up like 50m away and are trying to measure if there is indeed any energy change. If the is, then it has mass. I don't kno if theyve alwready done the experiment, but that's what I heard.

 

[daveed]

Wouldn't the neutrino flux kill the tortoises and cause the Earth to fall to the bottom of the universe?

no it wouldnt. its tortoises all the way down.

 

[Chronos]

no it wouldnt. its tortoises all the way down.

I never considered that possibility. I retract my objection.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

muon neutrinos disappear while traversing the earth

The France reactor and others seam to say there is no mass to neutrinos, then a big argument starts that says you are not far enough away to tell(The Buddha said" In the evil latter day of the law, People of authority will lie to keep their high position").

Well let's go all the way through Earth and we find something I could say is is caused by Nuclear Force Crystal, the other side could say it is caused by oscillation.


"Super-Kamiokande results announced in 1998, which showed "the smoking gun" that muon neutrinos disappeared while traversing the earth"
From:http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/kamland_faq.html

 

[Chronos]

Well let's go all the way through Earth and we find something I could say is is caused by Nuclear Force Crystal, the other side could say it is caused by oscillation.

You are starting to scare me with the Nuclear Force Crystal thing. A quick search on the net landed me here.

http://www.geocities.com/rtbailey_99/The_Neutrino_Report_T.html

I am calling my broker tomorrow and putting all my investments into heating oil futures.

 

[chroot]

You guys really should have reported this thread earlier so it could be put in its proper place.

- Warren

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

I wouldn't put money on oil futures yet- I have patent applicition for Synthetic oil

I wouldn't put money on oil futures yet- I have patent application for Synthetic oil. With nuclear power you could make all you want.

Go to http://pair.uspto.gov and look up patent application # 10/270,767

Let's figure the Nuclear Force Crystal thing out, and put your money on united we stand.

 

[Nereid]

The Japanese have noticed a slight lower than normal neutrino count at night coming from Sun (See book Solar Neutrinos by John Bachall)

You forgot to mention that this effect is consistent with the MSW theory of neutrino oscilliations ... my guess is that while the Bahcall website contains a tremendous amount of information about neutrinos, theories of neutrinos, the Standard Model, experimental results, etc, you are having difficulty understanding all this material, and are simply selecting a subset of it that you think might be consistent with your Nuclear Crystal idea.

Unfortunately for you, without some detailed, quantitative predictions of your idea, you can't even get to first base (let alone a comparison of the relative merits of your idea vs MSW oscillations, etc).

 

[Deeviant]

A neutrino can travel though a LIGHT YEAR of lead(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino) without being stopped. And as their name implies, they are neutral of charge, thus weaking interacting.

The only real way for your "force crystals" to work if they were super dense(ie more dense than I light year of lead).

Due to the profound effect such a material would have on its surrounding, I'm sure it will be easy to prove your theory just as soon as you tell me how the Earth hasn't been destroyed by your force crystal. Do not think what you are doing is science. True scientists do not cling on to their theories and disregard all reasonable evidence against it.

Oh yeah, why would you want to create synthetic food using electrolosis. The process of seperating hydrogen and oxygen is anything but efficient. There are a great many sources of hydrogen and carbon that would be much more economical to gather and process such as hydrocarbon compounds. And your idea truly falls in my eyes when you say you'll use your extremely inefficient process to feed one of the most inefficient sources of food(cattle). During a Ice Age Crisis, I'd rather hope we wouldn't make millions die of starvation while we answer our mac attacks.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

I heard it would take a light year of lead to stop all neutrinos, keeping in mind you have a Trillion neutrinos going through your body each second form Sun.

The fast and efficient way to separate water into hydrogen and Oxygen would be a plasma I would think, but let's use Thermodynamics efficiency equations. I worked on Plasma Reactors at Texas Instruments.

Dr Dale Cox, one of few people alive that has his Doctors in Dr Einsteins General Theory of Relativity,came to Alpine, Texas to teach(Sul Ross University) so he could be next to Observatory that was shooting laser to moon and reflecting it back(via reflector left by apollo mission to moon)to see if space is warped by gravity as Einstein predicted.


He stressed Thermodynamics as something very useful in everyday life, and taught Thermodynamics also. Einstein had a part in the development of Thermodynamics.

 

[Chronos]

Actually, a neutrino has a 50-50 chance of making it through a light year of lead.

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't put money on oil futures yet- I have patent application for Synthetic oil. With nuclear power you could make all you want.

Go to http://pair.uspto.gov and look up patent application # 10/270,767

Let's figure the Nuclear Force Crystal thing out, and put your money on united we stand.

From the title, it looks like oil from sugar - is there any net energy benefit to it, IE can it top the efficiency of nuclear electricity->hydrogen->car fuel cell?

Actually, a neutrino has a 50-50 chance of making it through a light year of lead.

That's pretty neat.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

The process uses carbon dioxide and water

The process uses carbon dioxide and water. The water is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity, and then the hydrogen is added to carbon dioxide.

 

[Deeviant]

The process uses carbon dioxide and water. The water is separated into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity, and then the hydrogen is added to carbon dioxide.

The question is why.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

When I first started I got a small amount of blackish matter that looked like oil like material and heating with match glowed red and removing match, smoked like an ember.

When the blackish material was mildly oxidized by putting a drop of water and putting in Sun light, turned white like sugar.

I seamed as if I was making oil like material and something like sugar (carbohydrate).


When I made large quantities, I found that the blackish material was a fungus like material that would burn and looks to be able to be distilled to make gasoline.

So I say that the plant uses photosynthesis to produce electricity from photoelectric effect, and the electricity is used to separate the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and the hydrogen is added to carbon dioxide to make carbon dioxide hydrogenation which a fungus can thrive and make chemicals for the plant. So in every seed there is different fungus, bacteria and algae to make different chemicals for plant, is what I am trying to prove now.

 

[Deeviant]

So I say that the plant uses photosynthesis to produce electricity from photoelectric effect, and the electricity is used to separate the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen and the hydrogen is added to carbon dioxide to make carbon dioxide hydrogenation which a fungus can thrive and make chemicals for the plant. So in every seed there is different fungus, bacteria and algae to make different chemicals for plant, is what I am trying to prove now.

Ah, fungi do not use photosynthesis, and photosynthesis does not produce electricity. Actually I have no clue at what you are trying to state, and it mostly sounds that you are in the same boat as I am.

 

[DrDaleCoxStudent]

Entropy

Well I have a mathematical proof do you have one?

Thermodynamics Entropy: When they first started studying chemical reactions they figured chemical reactions will go in the direction that would release heat (gas will burn to carbon dioxide and water, carbon dioxide and water will not turn to gas and oxygen naturally). But then they found some chemical reactions that get colder rather than release heat. So they came up with Entropy(Symbol = S). It is based on statistics. It can also be calculated from Heat capacity of a chemical, by dividing the heat capacity of the chemical, every degree from absolute zero to the temperature you are at but normally considered at 25 degrees C, and sum the results! Entropy always increases and never decreases. So if you calculate the entropy of gas and oxygen and then carbon dioxide and water, you find carbon dioxide and water has a higher entropy, so the chemical reaction will naturally go in the direction of gas and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water. What I am trying to do is turn Carbon Dioxide and water to Sugar and Oxygen but found that 3CO2 +2H2 + C3H8 = C6O6H12 is possible! Looking at the equation: C6O6H12 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O Since Entropy only increases and never decreases, 6CO2 + 6H2O must have a higher Entropy than C6O6H12 + 6O2 , and since by adding sun light(heat) to 6CO2 + 6H2O will increase its temperature and Entropy and would make it even harder for it to go to lower Entropy of C6O6H12 + 6O2 . Because of this I have all ways argued that Sun light is not added to 6CO2 + 6H2O to make C6O6H12 + 6O2 , but that Sun light is used to make electricity(photoelectric effect). Now that electricity could be used to make H2 and O2 by letting the current flow through water, and the gases could be used to drive a chemical reaction in the direction of sugar from carbon dioxide The chemical reaction C6O6H12 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O will go in the direction of sugar and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water. We know the Entropy of each gas, C6O6H12 + 6O2 (6 X 230) = 6CO2 (6 X 210)+ 6H2O (6 X 180) leaving sugar with a Entropy that must be less than or About 1000. Keeping in mind the high heat capacity of water and also its high Entropy because of this and the chemical reaction goes in the direction that has water, so let's see if we can get water on the product of chemical reaction and get the Entropy to be more on product side or close to that. Now to reverse this process, to go from carbon dioxide and water to sugar and oxygen but let's change and use the water to be separated into H2 and O2 and then add H2 to CO2 , let's look at this equation: 4H2 + CO2 = CH4 + 2H2O The Entropy 4H2 + CO2 (About 700J/K)= Entropy CH4 + 2H2O(About 600J/K) Trying to go from Entropy 4H2 + CO2 (About 700J/K)-To - Entropy CH4 + 2H2O(About 600J/K) there is a decrease of Entropy of about 100 and a chemical reaction will go in the direction that Entropy will increase and there is two ways to accomplish this. One way is to decrease the Entropy of 4H2 + CO2 (About 700J/K) by adding pressure to it giving it a lower Entropy than CH4 + 2H2O(About 600J/K). Now looking at this equation there is 5 moles on one side of equation and 3 moles on the other(product side) so by doing work(adding pressure to product side you could increase Entropy to product side and make the chemical reaction go in the direction of the product, and doing this in normal pressure of one atmosphere work will be done and could make reaction go forward to product side ). The other way is to increase the temperature as you look at the heat capacities( symbol Cp )of reactance and the products and we know that Entropy can be calculated by dividing the heat capacity per degree Kelvin from absolute zero to temperature you are at. Now if you have something that has high heat capacity like water( Cp = 75) its Entropy will increase faster than Co2(Cp = 37), So let's look at the equation again Entropy 4H2 + CO2 (About 700J/K)= Entropy CH4 + 2H2O(About 600J/K) and let's look at the heat capacity of each 4H2 (Cp = 29 per mole or 116)+ CO2 (Cp = 37) and CH4 (Cp = 36) + 2H2O(Cp = 75 per mole or 150). Giving us 116 + 37 = 153 on one side of equation (reactance)and 36 + 150 = 186 on the other(products). So as you increase the temperature the products will gain in entropy and when the products have more Entropy than reactance the chemical reaction will go forward.


Getting to the point, they have tryed to duplicate the process of plants(taking carbon dioxide and water and make sugar and oxygen out of it) with little luck. Text books add the photon to carbon dioxide and water to make sugar and oxygen, but from entropy we know that if you add heat to carbon dioxide and water it only increases the entropy and this would make it harder for it to go to the lower entropy of sugar and oxygen(since entropy only increases and never decreases).

Separate water into hydrogen and oxygen and then add the hydrogen to carbon dioxide and now from entropy the reaction comes close to being higher on products side, and if you have some water forming on the products side, with waters high heat capacity, adding heat now would put more entropy on the products side and the reaction will go forward.