Missing Solar Neutrinos
From SkepticWiki
The Missing Solar Neutrinos argument for a young sun is as follows (summed up from this site repeating the myth):
- Neutrinos are a by product of nuclear fusion. The number of neutrinos produced can be calculated by what is called "neutrino flux" based on standard solar models.
- However, when experiments here on earth were calculated to detect the number of neutrinos, it appeared we were detecting less than 1/2 of the predicted neutrinos.
- This would imply that there is substancially little nuclear fusion occurring in the sun according to the standard solar model.
- Conclusion: if the standard solar model is incorrect, the Helmholtz model of "gravitational collapse" - which predicts the sun is less than 20 million-years-old - must be correct.
[edit] Discussion
During the 1930s, creationists used argument above to imply a falsification of the standard solar model, which they concluded was enough to establish the competing model, Hemoltz "gravitational collapse" theory. According to Hemoltz, the sun gets its energy from gravitational contraction, however this theory predicts the age of the sun no greater than 20 million-years-old (it is easy to see why this theory would be popular with YECists, who deny that the sun is many billions of years old).
However, in the 1950s, the missing solar neutrinos were discovered, and Helmholtz theory has since been discredited [1]. According to TalkOrigins - The Solar FAQ:
- Concerning the lack of solar neutrinos as "proof" that there is no (or too little) fusion in the sun (e.g. Snelling 1997, Oard 1995), I believe that this argument has been amply rebutted in the previous sections of this faq. There is strong evidence that the apparent solar neutrino deficit is due to neutrino oscillations, and not to any shortcomings of the solar fusion model. This has received independent support from both solar and terrestrial neutrino oscillation results, and there are also several independent lines of evidence in favor of the standard solar model, with fusion. A model of the sun as a young star, with a large fraction of its energy coming from gravitational contraction, is inconsistent with its current color and luminosity, and grossly inconsistent with helioseismological results. That the sun cannot still be in the contracting phase was established already in the 1920s, well before the discovery of fusion.
Due to the compelling evidence, the "missing solar neutrinos" argument and reliance on Helmholtz model has fallen out of favor with creationists. According to AnswersInGenesis - Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use
- ‘Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun.’ This is about a formerly vexing problem of detecting only one third of the predicted numbers of neutrinos from the sun. Also, accepted theories of particle physics said that the neutrino had zero rest mass, which would prohibit oscillations from one ‘flavour’ to another. Therefore, consistent with the data then available, some creationists proposed that the sun was powered one-third by fusion and two-thirds by gravitational collapse. This would have limited the age to far less than 4.5 billion years.
- However, a new experiment was able to detect the ‘missing’ flavours, which seems to provide conclusive evidence for oscillation. This means that neutrinos must have a very tiny rest mass after all—experimental data must take precedence over theory. Therefore creationists should no longer invoke the missing neutrino problem to deny that fusion is the primary source of energy for the sun.
Today, it is undeniable that the sun's energy comes from nuclear fusion, and the standard solar model is accurate.
[edit] References and Resources
- AnswersInGenesis - Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use
- TalkOrigins - The Solar FAQ: Solar Neutrinos and Other Solar Oddities
