/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11857239

3MiB, 3600x5040, The Neutrino-Sunspot Anti-Correlation.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

The Neutrino-Sunspot Anti-Correlation

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 17:25:11 2020 No.11857239 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11857241

The excellent chart in the graphic comes from:

https://books.google.com/books?id=El8R8nC5QegC&pg=PA480&lpg=PA480&dq=five-point+running+average+of+the+neutrino+capture+rate&source=bl&ots=77fuvfJxiG&sig=fvhU3HEV7kG-oSi4FWBe6qi5owQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4jPOVkZLQAhVM0FQKHZacB0QQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=five-point%20running%20average%20of%20the%20neutrino%20capture%20rate&f=false

A review of the controversy is a mix of statistical arguments, assertions rooted in textbook theory, and on occasion some fascinating speculations. The conversation seems to raise more questions than it answers...

Colliders and Neutrinos: The Window Into Physics Beyond the Standard Model, by Rabindra Nath Mohapatra, Sally Dawson

https://books.google.com/books?id=-oVpDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA602&dq=Even+though+later+analyses+showed+that+the+correlation+with+solar+activity+does+not+exist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd-4CRmZLQAhVHwFQKHVt8D1gQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

> "... Even though later analyses showed that the correlation with solar activity does not exist ..."

Neutrino Astrophysics,
by John N. Bahcall

https://books.google.com/books?id=8GIP7uNMhlsC&pg=PA29&dq=an+alternative+explanation+of+the+apparent+anticorrelation+of+snus+with+spots+is+that+it+is+due+to+a+rather&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifzvyZmpLQAhVpw1QKHVwPB08Q6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=an%20alternative%20explanation%20of%20the%20apparent%20anticorrelation%20of%20snus%20with%20spots%20is%20that%20it%20is%20due%20to%20a%20rather&f=false

> "An alternative explanation of the apparent anticorrelation of SNUs with spots is that it is due to a rather improbable coincidence"

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:25:58 No.11857241 Report

Quoted By: >>11857247

>>11857239

High Energy Cosmic Rays, by Todor Stanev

https://books.google.com/books?id=1y9YEYHAfBMC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=In+the+1980s+there+was+a+widely+spread+suspicion+of+the+existence+of+a+second+solar+neutrino+puzzle&source=bl&ots=WuUWWj9yxX&sig=pOWdUMPMzSK9hRGz4idg0112JM0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_v4zLmZLQAhVEzVQKHdxhClUQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=In%20the%201980s%20there%20was%20a%20widely%20spread%20suspicion%20of%20the%20existence%20of%20a%20second%20solar%20neutrino%20puzzle&f=false

> "In the 1980s there was a widely spread suspicion of the existence of a second solar neutrino puzzle -- an anticorrelation of the detection rate of solar neutrinos with solar activity. A mild effect of that type has been observed in the early 1970s but with the improvement of the stability of the Homestake detector, both in the extraction technique and counting, the correlation after 1980 appeared to become stronger [40]. The further increase of the Homestake statistics and the emergence of other detectors did not confirm the effect, which is most likely due to the difficulties in estimating the statistical significance in cases with very low statistics. Actually through the decades of its operation the Homestake event rate has been found to correlate with almost everything, from the market value of some famous stocks to the fraction of republican senators in the US Senate."

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:27:01 No.11857247 Report

Quoted By: >>11857251

>>11857241

http://web.stanford.edu/group/Sturrock/papers/Walther99/Walther99.pdf

The Astrophysical Journal (1999)

On The Solar-cycle Modulation of the Homestake Solar Neutrino Capture Rate and the Shuffle Test

Guenther Walther

> "There exists no significant correlation between the Homestake neutrino data up to run 133 and the monthly sunspot number, according to a test that is based on certain optimality properties for this type of problem. It is argued that priorly reported highly significant results for segments of the data are due to a statistical fallacy: the usual methods for evaluating the significance of common tests for correlation are not applicable in the sunspot-neutrino context.

> Standard tests for correlation are built on strong assumptions that usually do not apply in a time series context. A violation of these assumptions can lead to erroneous, highly significant results. There exist statistical techniques to evaluate nonparametric measures of correlation in a time series context. An appropriate test based on certain optimality properties shows that there is no significant correlation between the sunspot number and the solar neutrino flux up to run 133. A proper reanalysis of reported highly significant correlations for earlier stretches of the data gives results that are compatible with the hypothesis of no correlation. These findings allow one to put together a coherent picture of the somewhat conflicting evidence reported in the literature: the correlation analysis does not contradict the periodogram analysis in Bahcall & Press (1991), where no significant 11 yr component was found in the neutrino data. And the widely reported improved correlation with smoother functions of solar activity is likely due to the statistical effect ..."

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:28:03 No.11857251 Report

Quoted By: >>11857256

>>11857247

Solar Interior and Atmosphere,
edited by Arthur N. Cox, William Charles Livingston, Mildred Shapley Matthews

https://books.google.com/books?id=u3EAvRsJoZgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=numerous+authors+have+examined+the+data+from+the+homestake+experiment+as+the+data+evolved+using+various+statistical&source=bl&ots=KkyAHvsjDb&sig=YpDn-xLunYY_foLat_MfbryYkjM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVzbTempLQAhVmqVQKHcQSAzUQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=numerous%20authors%20have%20examined%20the%20data%20from%20the%20homestake%20experiment%20as%20the%20data%20evolved%20using%20various%20statistical&f=false

> "Numerous authors have examined the data from the Homestake experiment as the data evolved using various statistical methods to decide whether the data set is consistent with a constant flux of neutrinos. They have also examined whether there is evidence for a variation in the observed 37 Ar production rates and whether there are unique correlations with solar or astronomical phenomena.

> Below, we refer to these analyses and indicate the statistical treatment and conclusions. Ehrlich (1982) found no periodicity in the range 0.4 to 5.0 yr. Basu (1982) reported a correlation with the high-level Ap index. Haubold and Gerth (1985, 1990) made a harmonic analysis of data from 1970 to 1989 and found periods of 8.33, 5.00, 2.13, 1.61, 0.83, 0.61, 0.54 and 0.51 yr. Lanzerotti and Raghaven (1981) found a correlation with cosmic-ray fluxes and intense solar flares.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:29:06 No.11857256 Report

Quoted By: >>11857263

>>11857251

> Gavrin and Kopylov (1984) used Kolomogorov-Smirnov and chi-squared tests to find no variations. Bahcall et al. (1987a) noticed that the correlations depend on just a few experimental points. Subramanian and Lal (1987) and Subramanian et al. (1988) found that the correlations were suggestive of neutral-penetrating particles. Wilson (1987) found no evidence for variations from 1971 to 1981. Raychaudhuri (1986, 1989) published many papers using various statistical tests that favored variations. Attolini et al. (1988) using a superposed epochs method found support for a 2.1-yr period. Davis et al. (1990), Davis (1986), and Rowley et al. (1985), discussed a correlation analysis with sunspots and solar diameter data. Baltz et al. (1989) did an analysis of correlations and streaks of high and low results. Nunokawa and Minakata (1991) found that any anti-correlation with sunspots depends on the treatment of errors and is not definitely established.

> Veselov et al. (1987) pointed out that there is a half-year correation with observed solar latitude in 1979 and 1980. Bahcall and Press (1991) showed that there is an anti-correlation with sunspots in 1977-1989, but not in 1970-1977. Krauss (1990) found a correlation with variations in low-order acoustic solar oscillations in 1977-1988. Bieber et al. (1990) showed that the data is strongly correlated with monthly sunspot numbers, and the strength of this correlation rises when the semi-annual variation is included. Filippone and Vogel (1990) found that a time dependence with sunspot numbers is more probable than a constant rate.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:30:08 No.11857263 Report

Quoted By: >>11857269

>>11857256

> Dorman and Wolfendale (1990) suggested that there is an apparent correlation with solar magnetic fields. Fiorentini and Mezorani (1991) note that a fit to sunspot occurrences is slightly better than a fit to a constant flux. Sakurai (1990) showed that a sequential analysis supports quasi-biennial variations. Finally Gavryuseva et al. (1990) found that a power spectrum and correlations analysis reveal 3 significant peaks that are unlikely to be of random origin.

> Most authors that have analyzed the full set of data from 1970 to 1990 find a reasonably significant correlation between the 37 Ar production rate and sunspot occurrences, solar oscillation frequency changes and solar magnetic fields. Obviously one needs a solar neutrino detector with a higher signal rate to make a definitive test of this phenomenon."

Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Physics: The Astrophysics of Neutrinos,
by Georg G. Raffelt

https://books.google.com/books?id=6esnbt7BfIwC&pg=PA381&dq=because+of+the+statistically+high+significance+of+the+anticorrelations+with+solar+activity+of+the+homestake+results&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjru5D9mpLQAhVqzFQKHcPEC_AQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=because%20of%20the%20statistically%20high%20significance%20of%20the%20anticorrelations%20with%20solar%20activity%20of%20the%20homestake%20results&f=false

> "Because of the statistically high significance of the anticorrelations with solar activity of the Homestake results it is not entirely obvious how to proceed with a quantitative test of the oscillation hypothesis which can cause only a day-night or semiannual time variation. In the present section a possible long-term variability of the solar neutrino flux or its detection methods is ignored, i.e. the apparent anticorrelation with solar activity at Homestake is considered to be a statistical fluctuation. In Sect. 10.7 a possible explanation in terms of neutrino interactions with the solar magnetic field is considered.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:31:10 No.11857269 Report

Quoted By: >>11857272

>>11857263

> One may take the opposite point of view that the variability at Homestake is a real effect, and that it is not related to neutrino magnetic moments because that hypothesis requires fairly extreme values for the dipole moments and solar magnetic fields (Sect. 10.7). An interpretation of the data in terms of neutrino oscillations then becomes difficult because one admits from the start that unknown physical effects are either operating in the Sun, in the intervening space, or in the detectors. One could argue perhaps that the apparent variability of the Homestake data in itself was evidence that something was wrong with this experiment. In this case one could still test the hypothesis of neutrino oscillations under the assumption that the signal recorded at Homestake was spurious in which case one must discard the entire data set, not only parts of it as has sometimes been done. Ignoring the Homestake data does not solve the solar neutrino problem, but its significance is reduced.

> Still, as no one has put forth a plausible hypothesis for a specific problem with the Homestake experiment it is arbitrary to discard the data. Admittedly, it is also arbitrary to consider the time variation spurious even though standard statistical methods seem to reveal a highly significant anticorrelation with solar activity"

> The following review of the statistics is quite technical, but I think nevertheless important, because it appears to argue that both sides can point to the same statistical data to make their opposing cases!

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:32:21 No.11857272 Report

Quoted By: >>11857275

>>11857269

Neutrino Astrophysics,
by John N. Bahcall

(recall that Bahcall was the theorist who insisted upon revising theoretical solar neutrino predictions downwards as the first solar neutrino observations came in, before it was admitted that there was a "solar neutrino problem")

https://books.google.com/books?id=8GIP7uNMhlsC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=five-point+running+average+of+the+neutrino+capture+rate&source=bl&ots=VnJbEQ7-4L&sig=qYogoLSx-CKgnxK3oDkUnVo_GIs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4jPOVkZLQAhVM0FQKHZacB0QQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

> "An anticorrelation between SNUs and sunspot number is apparent in Figure 10.7. Davis (1987) pointed out that in the period from 1977 (corresponding to the beginning of sunspot cycle 21) through 1983 the correlation coefficient between yearly average 37 Ar production rate and sunspot numbers is 0.94. The change in 37 Ar production rate in the three year period 1977 to 1980 corresponds to a change in the rate from 0.84 atoms day-1 (4.4 SNU) to 0.1 atoms day-1 (0.5 SNU), essentially equal to the cosmic ray background rate (0.4 SNU). After the drop, the 37 Ar production rate gradually recovers as the solar activity declines.

> The most remarkable feature of the apparent correlation is that the capture rate is very close to the background level of 0.1 capture per day [see Eq. (10.5)] for the four measured points near 1980.0.

> Is this apparent correlation real? Davis (1987) suggests that the effect that is apparent in Figure 10.7 has a statistical significance of about 5 standard deviations. Moreover, he stresses that the largest changes are seen at a characteristic time, when sunspot activity is at a minimum. On the other hand, Bahcall, Field, and Press (1987) have concluded on the basis of an analysis of the same data that the correlation is not significant at a definitive level.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:33:24 No.11857275 Report

Quoted By: >>11857278

>>11857272

> How can one draw such different conclusions on the basis of the same facts? The following discussion shows that there are different plausible ways of looking at the data.

> Consider a hypothetical linear relation between neutrino capture rate and sunspot number,

> SNU = a + b x sunspots. (10.21)

> The simplest statistic to investigate is whether the x2 [chi-square] distribution for the relation of Eq. (10.21) is significant or not. The numerical values of the pairs of variables (SNU, sunspots) can be taken from the paper of Rowley et al. (1985). Remarkably enough, the significance of the correlation depends sensitively on exactly how one estimates the standard deviations associated with each measured SNU value. The upper and lower error estimates are different in Cleveland's (1983) application of the maximum likelihood method. The reason for this asymmetry is that Cleveland does not allow negative values for the neutrino capture rate.

> Bahcall et al. (1987) defined two different estimates of the individual standard deviations: (1) average error, which is equal to one-half the difference between the upper and lower limits quoted by Rowley et al. (1985); and (2) upper error, which is equal to the difference between the upper limit and the best estimate value. For most experimental situations in which the counting rate is large, observers quote symmetric estimates of the uncertainties, in which case the average error is equal to the upper error.

> The null hypothesis is that the capture rate is constant in time (b = 0). This hypothesis can be marginally rejected (2% significance level) for average errors. However, the null hypothesis is not rejected for upper errors (61% significance level).

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:34:26 No.11857278 Report

Quoted By: >>11857280

>>11857275

> The reader will immediately see how both points of view are consistent with the above cited result. The 'stimulating' view of Davis interprets the 2% significance level of rejection for the null hypothesis as quantitative confirmation of the apparent correlation. In Davis' view, 2% is a highly suggestive result. On the other hand, I am impressed by the fact that the results depend sensitively upon how the errors are estimated. Even with the most favorable interpretation of the errors, the significance level for rejection of a constant flux is as high as 2%. Since there was no a priori physical reason for expecting an anticorrelation with sunspot number, many different variables could be (and perhaps were) considered in a search for a possible correlation. This makes, in my view, the 2% significance level seem inconclusive.

> Since x2 probabilities depend sensitively on assumed Gaussian errors, Bahcall, Field, and Press (1987) also computed a different, more model-independent test for statistical significance. For the null hypothesis that the SNU flux is constant in time, the data (whatever its error distribution) should be statistically invariant under scrambling in time, as long as the pairing of each measurement with its own standard deviation is preserved. Therefore Bahcall et al. (1987) randomly permuted the data 1000 times. For each permutation, they fit to sunspot number as indicated in Eq. (10.21) and compared the value of x2 for the scrambled data with the value for the observed data. This test determines the acceptability of the null hypothesis: The neutrino capture rates are independent of time.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:35:28 No.11857280 Report

Quoted By: >>11857283

>>11857278

> The fit of Eq. (10.21) to the real data is better than is obtained with the scrambled data in all but 5% of the permitted cases. This result confirms the conclusion of Davis (1987) (although not at the suggested extremely high significance level) that there is an apparent correlation between SNUs and sunspot number. However, in my view the significance level is not sufficiently small to justify rejecting definitively the null hypothesis of no time variation.

> How robust, under editing of the data set, is the conclusion that there is a correlation? Not very. If the four low neutrino capture rates around 1980 are removed and an identical statistical analysis (scrambling on the data) is performed, the best fit SNU rate is practically independent of sunspot number. In fact, 86% of the scrambled data sets yield a better fit to the sunspot data than do the actual data [see Bahcall et al. (1987)].

> The suggested correlation between neutrino capture rate and sunspot number depends almost entirely upon the four low points near the beginning of 1980. I believe that this sensitivity to a small number of points suggests that the correlation is less likely to be physically real. On the other hand, the 'stimulating' point of view rejoins that the four points that were removed are valid data and are especially significant because they occur near maximum sunspot activity.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:36:29 No.11857283 Report

Quoted By: >>11857285

>>11857280

> In any event, the reader can see that there is some analogy between the current controversy and the traditional source of academic polemics, namely: 'Is it more correct to describe the coffee cup as half empty or half full?'

> B Correlations with solar flares

> Bazilevskaya et al. (1982) and Davis (1987) have suggested that solar flares may have produced neutrino pulses that showed up in his 37 Cl detector as unusually high observations. This result is of great potential importance since conventional theoretical calculations indicate that, while flare dynamics is not understood in detail, there is not enough energy available in neutrinos produced by flares to cause a significant signal in the 37 Cl detector (Lingenfelter et al. (1985) and Bahcall, Field, and Press (1987)). Moreover, many of the suggested theoretical interpretations of the 37 Cl experiment would have to be revised if it turned out that part of the observed event rate of 2 SNU was due to neutrinos produced by solar flares on the surface of the Sun, rather than by neutrinos produced by nuclear fusion in the solar interior.

> The following discussion summarizes the observational evidence on the relation between solar flares and the 37 Cl neutrino capture rate [see Davis (1987) for a fuller discussion of the observations]. Run 27, the highest experimental run, corresponded in time with the great solar flares of August 1972. Unfortunately, the flares occurred early in the exposure interval and therefore most of the 37 Ar atoms that might have been produced by flares would have decayed before the extraction was completed. However, Bazilevskaya et al. (1981) pointed out that run 71 might also be high because a burst of high-energy protons was produced by the Sun in October 1981.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:37:33 No.11857285 Report

Quoted By: >>11857288

>>11857283

> The extraction for this period indeed indicated an enhanced capture rate. In his Table 2, Davis (1987) lists several other solar flares for which there was an excess of observed 37 Ar atoms in the tank. However, not all major solar flares yielded an excess of 37 Ar and the uncertainties in the number of atoms is large in all cases. If flare events were responsible for the increase in the capture rate above the average rate, the approximate numbers of 37 Ar atoms produced in the detector in runs 27, 51, and 71 were 250 ± 130, 20 ± 15, and 56 ± 30, respectively. According to Davis, Monte Carlo simulations of the data indicate that approximately 1 or 2 runs as high as the runs that might be correlated with flares are expected in 60 experiments."

Then, what began as simply a hunch appears to gain some credence...

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010517.html

2001 May 17

> "Explanation: Neutrinos are subatomic particles generated by the nuclear reactions which power stars like our Sun. Flying outward from the Sun's core, they easily pass through the Sun (and almost anything else!) unimpeded and should be detectable by earth-based neutrino 'telescopes'. Still, to the long-standing consternation of astrophysicists, the observed flux of solar neutrinos is less than expected. In a new twist to this solar neutrino saga, an analysis of data from the GALLEX / GNO neutrino detector finds a solar neutrino flux that varies over about 27 days ... approximately matching the Sun's rotation period. In fact, since different parts of the Sun rotate at different rates, the neutrino flux variations match most exactly the rotation rates of the areas shown in red on this colorful cross-sectional map of the solar interior rotation. So how could solar rotation affect the neutrino flux?

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:38:35 No.11857288 Report

Quoted By: >>11857291

>>11857285

> Some theoretical models say that neutrinos can change quantum properties when they interact with tangled solar magnetic fields and become particles that the neutrino experiments were not designed to detect. Then, as the Sun rotates, the neutrinos sometimes come to us unaffected and sometimes come through magnetic fields, diminishing the flux that can be measured."

http://electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

Don Scott on the Production of Solar Neutrinos

> "The neutrino problem is a hurdle only for the standard fusion model. In the Electric Sun model there is no energy produced in the core -- radiant energy is released at the surface by electric arc discharge. So, there is no 'missing neutrino' problem for the electric Sun model. The electron-nuetrinos [sic] that are observed are probably produced by fusion taking place at the solar surface that produces heavy elements (other than hydrogen and helium).

> For decades the measured deficiency of electron-neutrinos has been a continuing embarrassment for those who want to 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 this fusion model, there has been a great effort to explain away the observed deficit."

Wal Thornhill on the Anti-Correlation

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/sciences-looming-tipping-point/

> "Experimentally, a DPF [dense plasma focus] produces nuclear fusion and is a copious source of neutrons. Neutron capture in a dense plasma environment of protons and positive ions is necessary to ‘build’ the heavy elements from the lighter elements.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:39:37 No.11857291 Report

Quoted By: >>11857294

>>11857288

> So here we have a straightforward possible solution to the continuous production of heavy elements by all stars. The resultant complex nucleosynthesis in the photospheric granules can also be expected to produce a mix of different neutrino types. The observed neutrino modulation by sunspots is then easily explained because the sunspots clear areas of the photosphere of granulation."

Wal further suggests an experimental test...

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/solar-neutrino-puzzle-is-solved/

> "What if the neutrino discovery is correct?

> It says nothing about the correctness of the Standard Solar model. However, it does have 'important implications for cosmology and particle physics'. If neutrinos do have mass it will tend to confirm the Electric Universe model. In it, neutrinos are not fundamental particles but are comprised of the same charged sub-particles that make up all matter. They are the most collapsed form of matter known. When a positron and an electron 'annihilate', the orbital energy in both is radiated as a gamma ray and the sub-particles that comprised them both assume a new stable orbital configuration of very low energy, or mass. Matter cannot be created from a vacuum nor annihilated in this model. The differences between the neutrino 'flavours' is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses.

> The electric Sun model expects far more complex heavy element synthesis to take place in the natural particle accelerators in the photospheric lightning discharges. In that case the various neutrino 'flavours' are all generated on the Sun and do not need to 'oscillate' on their way to the Earth to make up an imagined deficit.

!TbBqvGxDUQ

!TbBqvGxDUQ Wed 01 Jul 2020 17:40:39 No.11857294 Report

Quoted By:

>>11857291

> What's more, fluctuations in neutrino counts are expected in this model to be correlated with electrical input to the Sun, that is, with sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This has been observed. The standard solar model does not expect any correlation since there is a lag estimated in the millions of years between the nuclear reaction in the core and its final expression at the surface of the Sun.

> There is an experiment suggested by the SNO results that could confirm the Electric Sun’s photospheric origin of neutrinos. It would require continuous measurement of neutrinos of all flavours as a very large sunspot group rotated with the Sun. In this model, sunspot umbrae are not a source of neutrinos so there should be modulation effects associated with the Sun’s rotation that might be measurable with present equipment. Such an experiment, if sensitive enough, offers the possibility of detecting neutrino oscillations in the Sun as they traverse varying proportions of the body of the Sun. A positive result would falsify the standard nuclear model of the Sun."

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches