Electric Sun & Solar Neutrinos III
I want to return to the matter of solar neutrinos and
Haig's
post #1168 in this thread (now all the way back on page 30 and probably half forgotten). I have already dealt with neutrino oscillations in my earlier post
Electric Sun & Solar Neutrinos II (post #1218 on page 31). But there is another aspect of neutrino physics that Thornhill & Scott & etc. get just as wrong that I will address here.
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.
This paragraph features two major failures. We start with, "
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 ..." I will assert here that it is physically impossible for Thornhill's model to do this no matter how hard he tries. The reason is simply this: There is one and only one way known to physics for the Sun to emit neutrinos and that way is nuclear fusion; the mere presence of neutrinos is enough to call his hypothesis into serious question. But worse for Thornhill, the solar neutrinos are not distributed randomly in energy, but are distributed in widely spaced, narrow energy bands, which also happen to coincide with the narrow energy bands one expects from the fusion reactions of the standard model. This spells doom for Thornhill's hypothesis before we get past sentence one (see the discussion on my webpage
Solar Fusion & Neutrinos for supporting details & documentation).
The second major failure is this: "
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." Once again we are presented with an argument that cannot possibly be true in the context of known physics. Like I just said:
There is one and only one way known to physics for the Sun to emit neutrinos and that way is nuclear fusion. If the neutrino flux is variable with time that could mean that the fusion reaction rate is variable with time (there is no good reason to assume the fusion rate is rigidly constant in any case), or it could indicate new neutrino physics. A crucial study along these lines appears to be
Sturrock, et al., 2005. They analyze the Super-Kamiokande dataset, and compare their analysis & results with several previous studies, some of which report evidence for a variable solar neutrino flux, and some of report the contrary. They conclude, in part, "
It appears that current evidence for variability of the solar neutrino flux from the Homestake (99.9% CL), GALLEX (99.9% CL) and Super-Kamiokande (98%-99% CL) experiments, when taken together, comprise a strong case for the existence of a sterile neutrino which, together with the needed large transition magnetic moment, would be harbingers of important new physics." (where CL = Confidence Level). However,
Aharmim, et al., 2010 did not find any evidence for variability of the
8B neutrinos at SNO, whereas
Ranucci & Rovere, et al., 2007 did find evidence for a variability of the
8B neutrinos at SNO, but were able to identify the source of the variability as the Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun. This shows that the variability, if real, is very weak and/or complicated (maybe some neutrinos vary in flux while others so not). So whatever side one wants to take in the argument, definitive claims that there definitely is or is not a variability in solar neutrino flux are at best premature.
The mere variability of the neutrino flux might either (1) invalidate the fusion model, as Thornhill claims, or (2) indicate a highly acceptable variability in the fusion reaction rate inside the sun, or (3) indicate previously unknown (i.e.,
new) neutrino physics, or of course some mix of all 3 (none of these ideas are exclusive of the other 2). Regarding (1), as the paragraph above indicates, Thornhill would have to introduce new physics to explain how the solar fusion model would be invalidated. There is nothing wrong with the ida of introducing new physics; after all, one can hardly argue that we already know everything there is to know about physics. However, there are different magnitudes of "new physics". We already know that nuclear fusion generates neutrinos, and very specific, non-random neutrinos. We already know that the neutrinos seen emanating from the Sun precisely match this prediction of nuclear fusion. So, in order to invalidate the nuclear fusion model using only neutrinos, it would be necessary to show how the physics of the new process (whatever it is) so closely mimic's the neutrino output of nuclear fusion that one could easily be mistaken for the other, which is a pretty tall order. Of course, one would also have to show that the interior structure of the Sun is not compatible with nuclear fusion, which is another fairly tall order. But the new physics introduced here by Sturrock,
et al., is no where near so stunning. While nuclear fusion is an extremely well studied phenomenon in an extremely well explored science (nuclear physics), neutrinos are elusive and quite a bit about them remains unknown. Furthermore, none of their suggestions run afoul of anything already known to physics; they add to physics without creating any internal conflicts, while the new physics Thornhill would have to describe would create waves throughout the entire realm of physics. Reason favors the new physics proposed here by Sturrock,
et al., and we only need to note that Thornhill does not attempt to even mention new physics anywhere, so he has work to do to say the least.
Once again, the
bottom line is this: There is no way that a variable solar neutrino flux can reasonably be interpreted as in any way falsifying, or even weakening, the theory that the source of solar energy is nuclear fusion in the core.
!) is obvious: this predicts that there will be no neutrino flux at all from the Sun. The facts are