The KamLAND Test
Letters to neutrino observatories
The letters reproduced below are self-explanatory.
Readers here are most welcome to copy this page to anyone in neutrino and other elementary particle research.
A related letter, reproduced in LIGO, was subsequently sent to scientists and engineers at the
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO).
Subject: KamLAND and the Unification of Physics
Date: 20 February 2003
Professor Giorgio Gratta
Dear Professor Gratta,
Your co-authored paper of 9 December 2002 to Physical Review Letters was indeed very reassuring. This letter is to request of you and your privileged KamLAND team to kindly consider a follow-up experiment.
A flux of electron-antineutrinos, too, should be detectable from the solar corona. The flux should also be strong enough to reveal nuclear fission as the primary energy producing reaction in the Sun (fusion being only the consequential secondary, as in the H-bomb). The finding would resolve persisting problems not only in neutrino and solar physics but also across the entire realm of physics!
The more detectable solar wind itself is still not well understood. This wind is known to consist mainly of protons and electrons, but the origin of which supersonic mass particles remains a mystery even to this day. Therefore, as you may agree, it would seem only logical and justifiable to check out for a possible third major constituent here – the electron-antineutrino. The three are the products of neutron decay, which process in the solar corona would also eliminate, by extension, the cosmic problems of dark matter and black holes! See The Galaxy.
In this final perspective on the nature of things, the neutrino is not much different from the gamma-ray photon. Both quanta originate from the nuclear surface region; both move at speed c (only); both are subject to scattering (not “oscillation”); and both can thus spawn other quanta. Their only difference is in the mode of propagation: essentially, the photon is one-dimensional and the neutrino two-dimensional. For complete details, please do click on The Neutrino and the other linked pages therein.
Your able lobby to investigate this solar antineutrino stream in one of the next KamLAND projects could prove pivotal to fundamental physics. If the material on my website is convincing overall, do make an exception if you must to favorably consider this unique and humble request from an “outsider.”
Thank you and best wishes to all on your cutting-edge endeavors toward the advancement of science.
Subject: Re: KamLAND and the Unification of Physics
Date: 22 February 2003
Professor Giorgio Gratta
Dear Professor Gratta,
Thank you very much for your prompt response indicating also a possible interest in my prediction.
Concerning your query about the quantitative flux strength that one could expect in experiments, I can provide the following for your kind consideration.
In principle, the total electron-antineutrino production in the Sun should be equal in number to the total electron production therein. In the solar wind we intercept, therefore, the antineutrino flux should bear a linear relationship to the electron flux. That is, averaged over the solar rotational cycle of about 28.4 days, stronger the solar wind – stronger will be the antineutrino flux.
For the electron-neutrino, on the other hand, such a dependence is already an empirical fact (which also buttresses my model); please see: R. L. McNutt Jr., Correlated Variations in the Solar Neutrino Flux and the Solar Wind and the Relation to the Solar Neutrino Problem, Science 270, 1635-1639 (8 December 1995); and the more recent: Solar Neutrino Flux: Evidence for Intrinsic Variability; and www.stanford.edu/group/Sturrock/papers/Sturrock02b/Sturrock02b.html.
Going by such reports also on the antineutrino the past few years (none solar, so far), I would put the detectable solar-antineutrino flux at 60% of the solar-electron flux; the rest being lost to scattering en route. (This is also considering the fact that, unlike the ‘uncharged’ neutrinos, electrons tend to get deflected by the geomagnetic field, which makes altitude a factor for electrons.)
Please do write for anything further. I shall also consider it a great honor if invited to attend any KamLAND project meetings and to coordinate with NASA or MIT for the solar plasma data.
Thank you once again for responding.
With best regards,
And some earlier letters…
Subject: SNO and the Unification of Physics
Date: 8 December 2001
Professor Art McDonald
The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Institute
Department of Physics
Queen's University at
Dear Professor McDonald,
The 30-year old Solar Neutrino Problem is no more. The solution lies with the ultimate model of the Sun. The neutrino does indeed change – but only in intensity, as the inverse square of travel distance. And it propagates only at the speed of light through space.
In all sincerity, these are not vain words. They are statements now theoretically well founded and empirically well substantiated.
Finally, in your next phase of experiments, please do check out for THE GREATER ELECTRON-ANTINEUTRINO FLUX from the solar corona, as predicted in my work. (Nuclear fusion is the primary reaction not in stars or galaxies but in mass centers of a much higher order in the cosmos. Fission predominates as the primary energy-producing reaction everywhere else down the line. The solar antineutrino originates predominantly in the final-stage neutron decay which peaks at, and effects, the corona. The other products of this decay are the proton and the electron, the ones we already detect today as main constituents of the solar wind. Further, the electron-neutrino flux, the shortfall of which is defying current theory, is from the secondary fusion process that occurs under the backpressure of fission, reminiscent of the hydrogen bomb.)
Awaiting your early and favourable reply,
An unfortunate news item here before the next letter...
Subject: Fwd: SNO and the Unification of Physics
Date: 15 December 2001
Dear Professor Totsuka,
THE ELECTRON ANTINEUTRINO
I was indeed saddened to read about the recent mishap at your observatory. It was heartening, though, to learn of your resolve to rebuild the detector without question. (The highly purified bulk and symmetry of the system, unlike its amorphous surroundings, may have brought natural frequencies into a very narrow range. Ensuring in the future that the photomultiplier tubes are neither evenly spaced nor share a common vibrational frequency might help!)
This letter is to kindly request of you and your committee to consider an added feature for the detector you will be rebuilding. If I understand correctly from journal reports and other literature, present neutrino observatories around the world do not have the capability or the provision to detect the electron-ANTINEUTRINO. Hopefully, the letter and attachment I am forwarding to you here will inspire you to consider seriously this aspect as well. In fact, it should prove to be of prime importance to all neutrino observatories!
Contrary to popular belief, the neutrino does affect, though ever so subtly, every single atom in its path. The energy packet that is the neutrino recoils from around the equator of its nuclear particle of origin. The energy thus diminishes in intensity as it propagates radially out. And it is this unique feature that makes its detection a challenge among all elementary particles. However, an intense stream of neutrinos can cause many detectable effects. The upwelling of the water table preceding a major earthquake is a good example. Another, also a precursor to major earthquakes, is the aboveground light flashes caused by interference of the neutrino wavefronts through matter. These are perhaps the best-known harbingers in quake-prone
Neutrinos thus dissipate their energy and momentum increasingly with distance – but moving always at the speed of light. The “disappearance” you report of them between two detection points is a consequence of this simple fact of effective depletion with travel distance. The explanation that the types of neutrinos we can detect are “oscillating” into “flavors” we cannot detect, too, is correct in this perspective. For example, if muon-neutrinos oscillate into tau-neutrinos on their way to Kamioka from KEK, it only means that the latter neutrinos are being produced en route (or mimicked) by the sheer intensity of the former, that is, by wave interference. (High-intensity wave interference can effectively cause frequency doubling and the related higher-energy phenomena, as in nonlinear optics. Successive doubling becomes also a possibility down the line through matter when intensities are exceptionally high.)
Please do see the forwarded material for more on these renewed insights. ...
you and the very best to you and your teams in all your endeavors.
Subject: THE ELECTRON-ANTINEUTRINO
Date: 16 December 2001
Professor of Physics
Director, SNO Institute
Kingston, Ontario K7L3N6
Dear Professor McDonald,
Thank you for your prompt response of the 8th inst. Though negative, it wasn’t something unexpected. I am pursuing the matter with the peer review world, which, as you may know only too well, is a very slow process. In the interim, however, it shouldn’t hurt to have in mind the model of the neutrino I have propounded. It has the immense potential to be the right one since it resonates with the rest of fundamental physics!
As you may also agree, it’s best not to be blinkered or to leave any stones unturned in our search to understand the neutrino fully. The electron-antineutrino is there in great abundance – above ground and below – just waiting to reveal itself and the simple secrets of the universe to us. Please do give it some serious consideration.
Thank you once again and best wishes to you and your Institute in your continued quest for answers.
– End of Letters –
The best places for updates on neutrino astronomy are the monthly Physics Today; and for more details, the biannual International Neutrino Conference Proceedings (NU2000 in Sudbury Canada) and the Neutrino Telescope Meetings.