the elusive neutrino found-out

the solar neutrino paucity, the supernova neutrino dirge, 'invisible' neutrinos passing through planets and stars-- the hottest special topical theory discussion today

[See also: SN1987A, and XN1974(SN?), and Pluton; and radiodecay; and electron; and UHF neutrino radio]

Data from KamiokaNDE II shows 20% reduction in the daily predominantly solar neutrino flux at the nightside of the Earth due to electromagnetic lensing by the Earth sphere, and to slight scattering in passing through-- (*) brushing 107 nucleons and electrons ... 'through-light-years-of-lead' is inapt phrase: the sun radius of 50 Earth-diameters thermalizes [randomizes] the neutrino path and attentuates the total neutrino energy to that counted paucity, about 40% of expected. [*]

* (Neutrinos do not emit Cernkov radiation though the radius for their supposed tiny mass is supposedly large and passing charged nuclear protons should frame-relatively cause the protons to so emit-- ergo, neutrinos are massless, or, unusually-small-radius....)

As yet physicists experience neutrinos at the order of 10MeV because they can detect them with huge scintillator vats surrounded by photodetectors watching for the Cernkov radiation emitted -not by the neutrinos- in their NDE Nucleon Decay Experiments, 'visible' only on those rare occasions an energetic neutrino strikes a local proton, neutron, or, electron: impelling it to faster-than-light-speed suprarelativistic through an optically slow medium [typically water or a chloride-compound liquid]. And they proffer no object model, save when we recall their early attempts, 50-60 years ago, to explain the optical photon as a longitudinal wave but later recognized a transversal wave ... we may resort to rechecking that 'old' theory as the likeliest possibility that neutrinos are 'half-photons', left or right 'halves', radially 'polarized', oppositely distributed 'internal' charge structure, totally neutral,-- being the anti-or-neutrino.

We recognize the normal understanding of these wavicles as merely 'what's-acceptable': atoms generate photons and so may absorb photons in simple action-symmetry [plus a minute fraction of √¶ther fluxuation, plus 'random' wavicle motion, to take-up any energy slack], one of the atomic orbiting electrons jumps [when permitted] to a higher-energy orbit and the difference between the orbits' shapes and sizes represents the specific absorption-action [that there is no extraneous photon field continuing beyond that atom] ... The transversal-field of the photon is a symmetry compatible with the electron-orbit-jump action, but neutrinos of point-symmetric shape [comparing cross-sections of the wavicle field] are not so compatible with atomic electron orbits ... The neutrino [energy and momentum] may be minutely adsorbed momentarily but not fully absorbed: it gets beyond the atom and the atom's electrons spit-out what could not be swallowed, having but chewed on the neutrino wavicle [like noise on a photon but not beyond recognition unless the solar-neutrino paucity should be explained by such chewing-beyond-recognition inside the sun, even as early cosmic photons were] ... Crudely neutrinos shaped unlike photons are merely ignored best-possibly by atoms except for extremely-hi-Q nucleon conversions, neutron ↔ proton+electron, do result in neutrinos, and similarly may absorb neutrinos, as though neutrinos were merely the 'light' of the nucleon world [in addition to MeV y-rays which tend to produce symmetric anti+electron pairs: symmetry and energy playing-in].

We find confirmation of the charge-emphasized shape of the neutrino in the opposite actions of anti-or-neutrinos: one tends to be completely absorbed [when detected] and so imparts its full momentum, the other scatters the nucleon struck, imparting part of its momentum: a characteristic of positive-and-negative charge interactions: similar charges repel: the central charge-structure of the neutrino is like a deformed-field particle and in coincident proximity with charged wavicles [electrons, muons, protons and internally neutrons] may interact as charged wavicles even though the neutrino's charge is balanced to neutral in its outer structure. [Neutron-repulsion by neutrinos may indicate something of the cross-section and size of neutrons and neutrinos: photons are not described for width, yet-- and we may find the other more massive neutrinos, the muon-neutrino and tauon-neutrino, with more concentric layers of charge structure, yet still radially polarized]

We find further confirmation of the neutrinos' radial-polarization in production by mutual-annihilation of an electron+anti [positron] which ordinarily results by co-deorbit in a symmetric pair of even-symmetry transversal-polarization gamma rays, but occasionally in direct pass-through, results in an anti-symmetric pair of odd-symmetry radial-polarization neutrinos ... each out being half of each in, (which in the case of the neutrino out, each vested-in-the-other's-cloak so-to-speak, is something more of a circus-trick than science).


Contemporary estimates that neutrinos have rest mass (primarily to explain a 'flavor'-oscillation in transit), though none have been slowed to a stop, may be an artifact of neutrino contact: the instantaneous bounce of a neutrino, or in its generation, constitutes an apparent mass-like self-convolvement at the point of contact. Photons do not exhibit this character as photon wavelengths are much larger than the electrons producing them. The eddy-mass of the neutrino being shaped differently than the photon, its single-focus odd-symmetry may be slightly slower than the photon double-focus even-symmetry. (All E-M radiation has eddy-mass helicity.)

However, their estimates run magnitudes too high-- assuming the neutrino-dispersion in observed stellar neutrino events, SN1987A, XN1974, was smaller than NDE aperture-recovery-time, est. 50nsec. for the KamiokaNDE and IMB NDE, statistical frequency for multiple-captures within that aperture all-then followed by null-capture ... and similarly μsec. for the Homestake Mine event ...

By prestimate, the 'mass' of the neutrino must be small as the supernova neutrino detection event preceded the visible by 2.5 hours over 160Kyr implying a velocity sublight by -2*10-9, 0.999999998C, where Eν = mν / √1-v² so Eν/mν ~ 7MeV / 500eV (max.), high enough that particle energy distribution is estimably lightlike rather than masslike, following radiation spectral law 2E³*e-E/kT/h² and the spectral hump uppermost must fit within 50 nsec. (the likelihood of multiple-captures followed by consistently-less-than-1). However, despite the ease of the mathematics, -which in terms of v, P(v) = P(E) ∂E/∂v = 2m4v*e-m/kT√1-v²/h²(1-v²)³,- the extremely short pulse 50nsec. Δv ~ v * 10-20 for aperture 50nsec./160Kyr, implies ~15m of cooking-space, a thousandth of the neutron star's 15Km radius: the neutrino burst was not blackbody-radiation but laserlike-spontaneous triggered from a deep 15m layer-- and thus obtained in coherence-bunching ... and maybe other factors compress the neutrino wavefront over 160Kyrs....

(The observed 0.2MeV histogrammic variability in SN1987A neutrino multiple-capture energy 7.2±MeV-per confines neutrino mass but only by 2*10-6, But it also imputes that this neutrino ratchet-process comes after the neutron star has gone superfluid, else the extreme temperature of the neutrons would totally thermalize the neutrinos, whether by Doppler emission or Compton scattering....)

(The observed 7.2MeV per neutrino is consistent with early estimates of 10MeV, the depth of a 3-solar-mass neutron star taking 30%, And further confirming a laser-like process: as the timing is spawned from toward the center but the bulk of neutrinos near the surface... Nevertheless, it should also be noted that 'modern' gravity theory is still in need of its 25% mass-hole-correction at neutron stars--which equals exactly the 2.5MeV/10MeV mass-energy difference.)

(The observed highly-variably-ca-10MeV 'threshold' neutrinos after the initial neutronization event antineutrinos, were partial-double-captures straddling the 50nsec. aperture and, roughly-equally-likely predominantly-off-centered biased-high captures--due to low-single-side-efficiency thresholding....)


In contemporary literature, NDEs are seeing neutrino spectral shifts overall 14-20% brighter at night: Likely the temporal aperture (typ. 50 nsec. * as in the SN1987A detection event capturing clusters even five neutrinos) strobing a scatter delay spreading neutrino clusters a portion of the 43 msec. Earth-transit to nightside, enough to be 20% more visible. In the supernova case, clustering was by percolation of neutrinos in the newly cooling neutron star, rising behind a shock-density wall abruptly transparent at the surface, keeping neutrinos significantly -within- the NDE temporal aperture ... while, solar neutrino clustering is by cell-nova'ing within the sun core where phonons compound as instantaneous hotspots (cells), ten meters across, 30 nsec., 160Hz, wherein fusion being a nonlinear process at ignition temperature, closely accelerates production of neutrinos:-- whose clusters spread somewhat in escaping the sun, and moreso in passing through the Earth, but thus the mean-mode moves from within the NDE temporal aperture to without and beyond -to the next,- greatly affecting the apparent capture rate.... (Scattering, also plays into the solar neutrino paucity model, more pronounced at higher energies, as scatter in passage through the solar interior 55× deeper than the Earth, entails significant momentum transfer, by hundreds of tighter bounces. Scattering, means elastic bounce; slight momentum transfer; possibly spin-nutation.)

* (The stated aperture time was for Kamiokande, 1987; it was significant to timing and clustering limits of non/isochronized supernova neutrinos; IMB had very similar results.)

(Hot-cell planar wave alignment, perpendicular to Earth's direction, might have the most prominent scintillation effect.)


But remarkably, while current NDE literature admits no sharp solar neutrino spectrum, almost contrarily SNO exhibits a day-night preference-spectrum: Its energy distribution mostly monotonically decreasing, linearly from ~5.0 MeV to 8.5 MeV, a mogul at 8.75 MeV (both night and day which showed no significant day-night preference), and another linearly from 9.0 MeV to 12.5 MeV, shows differentiations favoring night, strongly, for 7.25 MeV (the peremptory factor in SN1987A), significantly for spectral lines, ~5.0 MeV and 12.3 MeV, lesser 11.0 MeV, and but weakly 9.4 MeV; yet, broadly day-favoring spectral line 6.1 MeV ...--and insignificant elsewhere; Five neutrino spectral lines lying at square-root of the atomic nuclear masses of common supernova-core-generated dust element species, the nominal Fe-56 line at 7.25 MeV (per SN1987A) and nominal spectral lines corresponding to Si-28 at 5.1 MeV, triple-iron-168 at 12.6 MeV, and quad-iron-224 radio-daughters-ca-95/129 at 9.4/11.0 MeV ... leaving the one broad day-favoring and four weak interstitial non night-favorings as proof of neutrino scattering (10%) to Earth nightside.--

(The missing double-iron-112 line at 10.25 MeV may be due to supernova meso-core-action already preferring quad-iron over triple-iron,- and thence triple over double ... and the weakened 9.4 MeV nightside line, that should be supported by the radio-daughter~95 equally to the radio-daughter~129, may be due to the 8.7 MeV spectral mogul in the sun, enhancing the dayside --(it's not due to any supernova products) ... if not merely weak detection statistics and nuclear binding defects. The two apparent slopes in the chart, the first slope intercepting 0.0 at ~10.0 MeV, and a second slope meeting at the mogul, indicate and confirm multiple-species processes.)

As dust falls on neutron stars (of similar initial size by their method of creation), individual atomic nuclei still separated at ordinary electronic-orbital radii, impinge the slightly spongy surface mix of bound neutrons, protons, and sub-level protons (electrons wander atop, bouncing among iron nuclei standing-off their innermost degenerate electrons), and instantaneously fusion into the star, releasing and cooking neutrinos to the balance of, the impact energy proportional to the mass, plus the binding energy superlinear per the mass (NB All fusioning nuclear species absorb energy in binding to a supersized-nucleus, neutron star, but larger nuclei disproportionately more: cf the nuclear binding energy, curve, for ordinary nuclei), over the nuclear footprint proportional to the 2/3rd root of mass,- thus raising the neutrino temperature near something like mass.5 (square-root),- serendipitously-near if not exact, as implosion also distributes impact energy differently per mass and nuclear binding.

(Neutron stars are also dense enough to be gravitationally depth-equivocal:- neutrinos climb, out, losing such energy, whatever the neutron star mass, to not distinguish well how far the nuclei had fallen, in; Thus neutron stars appear similar in the depths of their gravitational wells, and neutrino energies from impacts of nuclei are estimates of their nuclei masses.)

Thus though SNO analysis inferred overall 14% nightside brightening, its time-averaged r.m.s. sun-nightside distance 530K mi. closer in Winter, Nov. 1999-May 2001, confused background nuclei falling on neutron stars: Maybe significant temporal dust variability in our Milky Way million neutron star galaxy core; or a hot heavy-dust cloud collapsing on one neutron star, possibly a failed supernova raining-back [*] near our local stellar group; or Earth's distance-square 10% variability to our solar system's Pluton present position during an epoch of heavy bombardment amid the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt Objects KBO-shepherded dust streams -(however, this would impute that Pluton is a neutron star, or quark star with neutron crust, rather than a surfaceless black-hole gravity singularity).

* (Failed supernovae as-is-possible are actually both the likelier source of neutrinos, and an explanation for the contemporary search for "dark mass--missing mass" of the galaxies and cosmos: A supernova is peculiarly inefficient in producing visible light, 99% wasted as neutrinos at core-neutronization, whence a failed supernova is even less efficient as it converts even more of its total-term energy to neutrinos and does not stand out visibly in telescopic detections and calculations ... this also means our own galactic supernova rate, if failed supernovas count for 10× more in our contemporary eon, may be thirty-years per; we've had two neutrino-detections so far.)

Both NDE aperture interception and extrasolar detections may be contributing to contemporary experimental inferences.

* [Solar neutrino detection paucity is by count not energy which may be diminished in a process of charge shaping: The concentration of its central charge creeps ahead in charge-local space plowing into its more tenuous head flattening and spreading while its counter-charge annulus drifts back in the mass-dense slower-light space of the sun, recondensing behind the central lead charge and recycling pushing-forward-through, replacing the central lead charge... Convolving like a smoke ring, the neutrino converts to its anti-version ... which though not the flavor-change proposed in the contemporary model, accounts for its mass without-changing-mass as in said model analogous to an epicyclic bloom-and-fire-to-bloom-again, but only if positive and negative charges were a different thing (*) not just different chirality, And only because the neutrino is odd-symmetry, (cf the neutron and its anti are odd-symmetry, not only positive-negative-exchanged but positive-negative-distinct, not translatable though structurally the anti-same) ... Its average, cosine-positive, intensity is 1/pi ~ 1/3rd; It would also have a neutral-version. This is slightly masslike but not standing mass; 0.1 eV in contemporary estimates. Photons, do not, do this, possibly because photons are paired-neutrinos; though stellar photons in laser-like process exhibit wide-interferometry coherence enhancement; neutrino-pairing explains why the SN1987A event recorded no quadruples, no pairs-of-pairs: Only single-neutrinos readily pair, whence 2, 3, 5, were likely, but 4, 6, not.]

* (Simply-paired opposite-charges can corotate -masslike- so that in simple-odd-symmetry a neutrino can become its own anti.)

ATTRIBUTION APOLOGY: Prior copy had instances of Cernkov Cerenkov radiation misattributed to Compton (inverse radiation) as are vaguely similar involving high energy electrons and photons (Compton) or photonic medium (Cernkov), producing energetic photons. (Nevertheless, Casmir-effect Zero-point-energy 'ZPE' field theory would have Compton inverse radiation simulate Cernkov radiation from charged particles scattering virtual photon pairs-- at sublight speeds: Physics theory and physics experimentation-history make poor coincidences, and worse memories....)

A premise discovery under the title,

Grand-Admiral Petry
'Majestic Service in a Solar System'
Nuclear Emergency Management

© 1996, 2000, 2005-2006, 2009-2010, 2013