The Antineutrino Debut
Date: Monday 8 August 2005
Subject: The Antineutrino Debut
The KamLAND Collaboration
Department of Physics
Elated, but not surprised, at the electron antineutrino discovery as reported in Nature 436, 499-503. Quoting you from a covering news item, "It's a revolution." Indeed, the upheaval is going to be across the entire spectrum of cosmology and unmatched in history!
You were the highest-ranking academic in the KamLAND Collaboration to kindly correspond with me on the subject, back in February 2003 (considering me less of a crank!); hence this further letter of appeal to you and the Collaboration for continued tests here. Please click LIGO (01/05), Earth Central (06/04), KamLAND Test (02/03), and UCLA Test (09/00) for earlier letters and test details.
Whether or not those letters had an influence in turning probes around to focus, for the very first time, on the Earth's core is of little import now. What really matters next, while the iron is hot and the focus is on, is for the Collaboration worldwide to kindly check out more on the core issues highlighted and explained in the above letters. They may be summarized as follows.
1. Nuclear decay will have a peak at the core-mantle boundary. Reason: Earth's radioactive matter resides mainly in the fluid outer core. Lower pressures being more conducive to fission and neutron decay, the outermost layers of the core, that is, at the region of its interface with the solid mantle, become the natural venue (helped by 2, next) to give up the ghost! In fact, the periodic peak outbursts and the region remaining highly fluid promote each other.
2. Decay number will peak closer to the equator. Reason: Due to Earth's rotation, the heavy nuclei in the fluid core tend to concentrate more along the outer equator under the centrifugal action (in the Sun, this results also in coronal mass ejections following fission; the liftoff points being seen as the sunspots); consequently:
(a) Beta-decay (where the electron and electron antineutrino are released from the radioactive nucleus, that is, without a change in mass number of the parent nucleus) will show a peak along the equator.
(b) Decay of free neutrons (released copiously in the fissure of heavy nuclei), too, will show a similar number rise at the equator.
During a major earthquake, a highly localized peak will
occur generally below the epicenter. (Data of
Most of all,
5. Contrary to popular belief, the neutrino (or antineutrino) affects every single atom (and molecule) in its path, though ever so subtly. However, on large bodies of matter such as tectonic plates (resting, and capable of movement, on the partially molten asthenosphere), the collective effect in time can become devastatingly patent. Thus, geo-antineutrinos are the (hitherto mysterious) prime movers of tectonic plates. The longtime stability of the Moon, under eons of perturbations, is the saving positive effect.
6. The backpressure from the outbursts compacts the solid inner core. The action also causes the solid core to increase its spin in relation to the (co-rotating) mantle, which outer body loses spin but ever so slightly due to its much larger moment of inertia.
Finally, the Sun, too, will show a prominence of
antineutrinos in the solar wind emanating from the corona.
Any questions on this, the final perspective on the nature of things, would be most welcome.
Thank you and best wishes to you and the Collaboration at the greatest frontier of modern times.
PS: The planet's core-mantle region corresponds to the solar corona, the stellar corona, the star cluster corona, the galactic corona, and so on. The unrelenting radiation, or wind – essentially of protons, electrons, and electron antineutrinos – would naturally peak during periods or epochs of increased nuclear activity, when detection would be possible even in distant bodies. It's very reassuring to note that the discovery of this fractal phenomenon at the galactic scale was recently made and reported also in Nature; see The Galactic Superwind.
– End of Letter –
The above antineutrino findings may be shaking the
mainstream to the core, with increasing interest for review of current
theories. The Nature editors, too, may be feeling the pulse, with a
sense of obligation and urgency to further an unbiased rethink. Hopefully, it
is the reason for their benevolent comeback in the form below (which I happened
to see after the above letter was sent to