Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eta C
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Omicron Persei 8
They do! Neutrinos changing flavors has been theoretically predicted and the experimental evidence of neutrino mass furthers the case[
|
It has been "theoretically predicted" only because they CAN'T EXPLAIN why the experimental results don't match expectations. You'll note that there is no OBSERVED evidence to suggest this actually happens or EVER will explain the missing neutrinos. |
Well, Michael, I hate to break the news to you (actually I don't but it makes a good lead in. 8) ) but you're wrong on this one. The solar neutrino "problem" was resolved in 2002 by an experiment at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. To summarize, the "problem" came about since the solar fusion process produces electron neutrinos. Initial observations on earth found only about 1/3 the expected number. However, these experiments were only sensitive to e-neutrinos and there are two other neutrino flavors: muon and tau neutrinos. Some theories gave a possible solution to the problem by having the neutrino change flavor, or oscillate. The SNO experiment confirmed this by directly observing mu and tau neutrinos from the sun in the proper proportion. As the link I gave here says
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Physics News Update
The upshot: all the nu's from the sun are directly accounted for. The missing nu-e flux shows up as an observable mu-nu and tau-nu flux. This conclusion is established with a statistical surety of 5.3 standard deviations, compared to the less robust 3.3 of a year ago. The measured e-nu flux (in units of one million per cm2 per second) is 1.7 while that for the mu-nu and tau-nu combined is 3.4. (When one includes all the other types of neutrinos, the flux from the sun is billions/cm2/sec.) emphasis mine
|
Sounds pretty conclusive to me. In fact it was also good enough for the Nobel Prize committee who gave the 2002 Prize in Physics to people involved in this, and other work. |
Well Eta, I'm a reasonable person. I'm happy to admit they probably do change FLAVORS. I'm still not sure that a 5.3 standard deviation (rather than a 3.3) suggests that the gas model is superior in any way based on this SINGLE experiement.
Again, I don't see how that DISPROVES the model I have presented, even if it somehow lends support to the gas model. I've yet to hear the gas model crowd explain solar moss for instance.