mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report an Analysis For decades the measured flux of neutrinos coming from the Sun has been insufficient when compared to the theoretically predicted value. This has been a continuing embarrassment for those who 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 the solar nuclear fusion model, there has been a great effort to explain 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 defenders of the accepted mainstream orthodox fusion model. The complete official announcement can be viewed at http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/page00.html As a result of their interpretation of the data obtained from their experiments, 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 to Earth. There are thought to be three flavors of neutrino: electron-neutrinos, muon-neutrinos, and tauon-neutrinos. They say that some of these flavors were not measurable by the previous experiments that were looking for them. They claim, on the basis of their experiment, that the measurable neutrinos turn into previously non-measurable ones enroute from the Sun. That phenomenon, 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: 1."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? 2. "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. 3."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 Reading the official announcement reveals the following: Sudbury uses three different reactions to measure neutrinos: 1. Charged Current reaction (CC). Sensitive only to electron-neutrinos (e) 2. Neutral Current (NC). Sensitive to all types (e,u,t) 3. Elastic Scattering (ES). Sensitive to all types but with reduced sensitivity to muon and tauon type neutrinos. If the total flux is what is actually of interest, one would expect the second experiment (the Neutral Current (NC) observation which is sensitive to all types of neutrinos), to be the most important one. Unfortunately the announcement says, "A measurement using the NC reaction, which has equal sensitivity to all neutrino flavors, will be reported in a future publication." We eagerly await it. Why delay the announcement? Thus, we are limited to the results of the CC (electron-neutrinos only) and the ES (electron-neutrinos and reduced sensitivity to the other two types) observations. These 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 (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 what the neutrino flux leaving the Sun is. 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 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. 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. At the Los Alamos Lab a new experiment that will look at both the source of neutrinos and what later happens to them is being prepared. An ideal neutrino oscillation experiment would create neutrinos of one particular flavor and attempt to detect one of the other flavors some distance from the source. The LSND experiment at Los Alamos is such an experiment, and has seen some evidence for muon neutrinos oscillating into electron neutrinos. Bill Louis, a Los Alamos scientist and cospokesperson of the BooNE collaboration recently said, "We will be looking for oscillations of muon neutrinos into electron neutrinos. If nature behaves as LSND suggests, our detector will collect about one thousand electron neutrino events over the next two years. If not, we won't see any electron neutrinos. Either way, we'll get a definite answer." For more information see The Los Alamos experiment . 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 sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This phenomenon 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. Quantitative determination of a correlation between neutrino flux and sunspot number and/or solar wind intensity would totally falsify the fusion model once and for all. And it would be further proof of the correctness of the Electric Sun model. Summary The high decibel level of rejoicing contained in the pronouncements is unprofessional. It is a clue that should not be ignored. It stands in curious contrast to the existence of obvious 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! Clearly, although the fusion model has now seemingly been vindicated in the hearts and minds of its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury experiment reveals that the "missing neutrino" problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified. References: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010710.html http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/ http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/ http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/anenigmes.html http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/neutrinos.html http://hyperphysics.phy-str.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino2.html http://www.physik.uni-regensburg.de/~sij17370/phy/misc/highlights19 98.html http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~bugel/why.html Next Page ----> Return to the Main Page [hit00007.gif]-[hit00007.gif]