🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <300@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
> 
> Almost true!. We are keeping track of the the neutrinos, and
> it's a good thing too,  apparently someone left the burner on
> simmer, 'cause we are only picking of half of what we should be
> finding.  Of course, as Debbie points out, by the time the lights
> are dimmed at the surface of the sun, we should have talked DoE-DoE
> out of the money needed to development a fusion concept that will
> really work. 
> 
> That "half" came from a "long time ago", so correct me if I'm wrong!
> 
Actually it's almost a factor of three.  Moreover there is some
(controversial) evidence that the remaining signal has some correlation
with the solar cycle.  The most likely interpretation of that would be
that some neutrinos are generated through cosmic ray interactions with
the upper atmosphere.  This would be slightly modulated by changes in the
size and strength of the magnetic field, which in turns depends on the
interaction between our magnetic field and the solar wind.

Nevertheless I would rate the possibility that the sun is turning off
as fairly low.  More likely we have some detail about the structure
of the core wrong (since we are only sensitive to the high energy
tail of the neutrino distribution) or some detail about neutrino
physics wrong.  There is a possibility that the electron neutrinos 
created in the sun could be converted, with near 100% efficiency
into other kinds of neutrinos before leaving the sun.
-- 
"More Astronomy                Ethan Vishniac
 Less Sodomy"                  {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
  - from a poster seen         ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    at an airport              Department of Astronomy
                               University of Texas