Top Document: [sci.astro] Astrophysics (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (4/9) Previous Document: D.00 Astrophysics Next Document: D.02 Have physical constants changed with time? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge First, it is worth remembering what a neutrino is. During early studies of radioactivity it was discovered that a neutron could decay. The decay products appeared to be just a proton and electron. However, if these are the only decay products, an ugly problem rears its head. If one considers a neutron at rest, it has a certain amount of energy. (Its mass is equivalent to a rest energy because of E = mc^2.) If one then sums the energies of the decay products---the masses of the electron and proton and their kinetic energy---it never equals that of the rest energy of a neutron. Thus, one has two choices, either energy is not conserved or there is a third decay product. Wolfgang Pauli was uncomfortable with abandoning the principle of energy conservation so he proposed, in 1930, that there was a third particle (which Enrico Fermi called the "little neutral one" or neutrino) produced in the decay of a neutron. It has to be neutral, i.e., carry no charge or have charge 0, because a neutron is neutral whereas an electron has charge -1 and a proton has a charge +1. In 1956 Pauli and Fermi were vindicated when a neutrino was detected directly by Reines & Cowan. (For his experimental work, Reines received the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics.) The long gap between the Pauli's proposal and the neutrino's discovery is due to the way that a neutrino interacts. Unlike the electron and protron that can interact via the electromagnetic force, the neutrino interacts only via the weak force. (The electron can also interact via the weak force.) As its name suggests, weak force interactions are weak. A neutrino can pass through our planet without a problem. Indeed, as you read this, billions of neutrinos are passing through your body. As one might imagine, building an experimental appartus to detect neutrinos is challenging. Since 1956, additional kinds of neutrinos have been discovered. The electron has more massive counterparts, the muon and tau lepton. Each of these has an associated neutrino. Thus there is an electron neutrino, mu neutrino, and tau neutrino. (In addition, each has an anti-particle as well, so there is an electron anti-neutrino, mu anti-neutrino, and tau anti-neutrino. Furthermore, it was realized that in order to get the equations to balance, the decay of a neutron actually produces an electron, a protron, and electron anti-neutrino.) Early work assumed that the neutrino had no mass and experiments revealed quickly that, if the electron neutrino and anti-neutrino have any mass, it must be quite small. In the 1960s Raymond Davis, Jr., realized that the Sun should be a copious source of neutrinos, *if* it shines by nuclear fusion. Various fusion reactions that are thought to be important in producing energy in the core of the Sun produce neutrinos as a by-product. In a now-famous experiment at the Homestake Mine, he set out to detect some of these solar neutrinos. John Bahcall has collaborated with Davis to write a history of this experiment at <URL:http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/>. Although quite difficult, in a few years, it became evident that there was a discrepancy. The number of neutrinos detected at Homestake was far lower than what models of the Sun predicted. Moreover, as new experiments came online in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the problem became even more severe. Not only was the number of neutrinos lower than expected, their energies were not what was predicted. There are three ways to resolve this problem. (1) Our models of the Sun are wrong. In particular, if the temperature of the Sun's core is just slightly lower than predicted that reduces the fusion reaction rates and therefore the number of neutrinos that should be detected at the Earth. (2) Our understanding of neutrinos is incomplete and, namely, the neutrino has mass. (3) Both. Astronomers were uncomfortable with explanation (1). The fusion reaction rate in the Sun's core is *quite* sensitive to its temperature. Adopting explanation (1) seemed to require some elaborate "fine-tuning" of the model. (Observations of the Sun in the 1990s have supported this initial reluctance of astronomers. Using helioseismology, <URL:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990615.html>, astronomers have a second way of probing beneath the Sun's surface, and it does appear that the temperature of the Sun's core is just about what our best models predict.) In contrast explanation (2) seemed reasonable. After all, just detecting neutrinos was challenging. The possibility that they might have mass was not unreasonable. In the 1970s Vera Rubin and her collaborators were also demonstrating that spiral galaxies appeared to have a lot of unseen matter in them. If neutrinos has mass, one might be able to solve two problems at once, both matching the solar neutrino observations and accounting for some of the "missing matter" or dark matter. Explanation (2) is the following. Suppose the neutrino has mass. Then the neutrinos we observe, the electron neutrino, mu neutrino, and tau neutrino, might not be the "true" neutrinos. The true neutrinos, call them nu1, nu2, and nu3, would combine in various ways to produce the observed neutrinos. Moreover, various properties of quantum mechanics would allow the observed neutrinos to "oscillate" between the various flavors. Thus, an electron neutrino could be produced in the core of the Sun but oscillate to become a mu neutrino by the time it reached the Earth. Because the early experiments detected only electron neutrinos, if the electron neutrinos were changing to a different kind of neutrino, the apparent discrepancy would be resolved. This explanation is known as the MSW effect after the three physicists Mikheyev, Smirnov, and Wolfenstein who proposed it first. The second explanation now appears correct. Various terrestrial experiments, such as the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), the Super-Kamiokande Observatory, the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment, and Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (MINOS), appear to be detecting neutrino oscillations directly. The mass required to explain neutrino oscillations is quite small. The mass is sufficiently small that all of the neutrinos in the Universe are unlikely to make a substantial contribution to the density of the Universe. However, it does appear to be sufficient to resolve the solar neutrino problem. Additional information on neutrinos is at <URL:http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/aneut.html>. User Contributions:Top Document: [sci.astro] Astrophysics (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (4/9) Previous Document: D.00 Astrophysics Next Document: D.02 Have physical constants changed with time? Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: