Scientists discover a barely significant periodicity in a solar neutrino experim

Question

Scientists discover a barely significant periodicity in a solar neutrino experimentresults from a number of experiments between 1990 and 2001. Apparently the neutrino fluxvaries with a 24 month period. The SNO experiment which collected data between 2001 and 2006 searched for this periodicity and found no significant evidence. After the SNO study wasreleased the authors of the original study claimed that the process that coursed the periodicitycan start and stop, and that the process stopped in 2001, so obviously SNO would not see aneffect. Would you consider the periodicity in solar neutrino flux hypothesis confirmed or not. Please discuss your reasons.

My current answer - "Due to the results of the experiment, the hypothesis of the periodicity in solar neutrino flux is confirmed. The experiments from 1990 to 2001 delivered the results predicted by the hypothesis. The fact that the SNO experiment found no significant evidence of the periodicity doesn’t affect the original hypothesis".

Please let me know if I'm on the right track..

Explanation / Answer

One of the primary aims of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory was to detect the neutrino oscillations that would confirm the existence of neutrino mass. Because solar rotation should not produce variations in the solar nuclear fusion rate, non-standard neutrino properties were proposed as an explanation. SNO’s combination of real-time detection, low backgrounds, and sensitivity to different neutrino flavors give it unique capabilities in a search for neutrino flux periodicities.

But, as far as the detection is to be considered, on a general face value, the detection could be one-time, which raises the question of whether to treat the detection as valid or a fluke. But the confirmation from the Super Kamiokande reassures the findings.

Thus, treating this hypothesis is valid up to a certain extent. Further proofs, if can be gathered to support the fact, would cement the hypothesis.

So, to answer your answer, in a general sense, the hypothesis should not be accepted. But given the circumstantial evidence, it has been.

You may like to refer to the findings of the SNO Collaboration here:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/hep-ex/0507079

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.