Talk:Solar neutrino problem

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VinnyPizz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Reply

"(this means that they do interact with ordinary matter though electromagnetic interaction either). They also don't interact through strong nuclear interaction, but only through weak nuclear interaction."

I think that first sentence is garbled. Can anybody straighten this out?

Unambiguous vandalism:

1. (cur) (last) 14:12, 28 Sep 2004 130.88.228.133 (History of the Problem) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Solar_neutrino_problem&oldid=6213203
2. Revision as of 00:12, 16 Sep 2004

82.42.172.71 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Solar_neutrino_problem&diff=5922966&oldid=5912677

1. Revision as of 00:10, 16 Sep 2004

80.176.236.74 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Solar_neutrino_problem&diff=5912677&oldid=5912632

— Brim 07:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I made some comments there that I hope some of the editors of this page can respond to and help impliment. Thanks - Taxman 22:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why? There are many other evidences of oscillation, and some of them actually NEED flavour oscillation (brief example: K2K results).

Didn't Clark write an SF novel, where the plot starts by mankind getting to understand the solar neutrino problem means our Sun will blow up in 1000years, so countries start to send Noah's spacearks?

Yep. Songs of Distant Earth. Nik42 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Reply

If you consider earth a round object, then you have the solar neutrino problem. If you consider earth as a flat object, having its poles connected eatchother through a superstring black wave and at the same time spherical hole , then the solar neutrino problem sudently disapears! Flat-Earther 13:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Reply

oh yes, of course! (wtf?!?!) Ezkerraldean

"The sun is a natural nuclear fusion reactor, fusing hydrogen to helium. Our current understanding of physics is quite clear about what happens: four hydrogen nuclei (protons), with and without the help of catalysts, are transformed into helium, neutrinos, and energy" It doesn't fuse hydrogen to helium it converts Hydrogen to helium. What gets fused is two differn'ts hydrogen ions and when it gets fused it becomes helium. But I'am sure which can someone correct it or make sure I'am right.--Scott3 21:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Reply

Hey, is that not the same as fusing Hydrogen to Helium? It fuses the Hydrogens, which by that process is converted to Helium. Correct? Yami Cassie 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Reply

"The sun is a natural nuclear fusion reactor" "sun's outer layers"

Because this article refers to the Sun in an astronomical context, the Sun is a proper noun and should therefore have a capital letter. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style

I have rewritten the Problem box to give a much clearer summary of the problem and its solution. CaptinJohn 10:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Reply

"It produced observations consistent with muon-neutrinos (produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays) changing into tau-neutrinos. Actually all that was proved was that fewer neutrinos were detected coming through the Earth than could be detected coming directly above the detector. Not only that, their observations only concerned muon neutrinos coming from the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth's atmosphere."

What's going on there? Looks like someone is having an inline argument with a previous editor. It's a pretty crucial paragraph and it makes no sense.

icambron 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Reply

Can someone add in more citations about the nuclear resonance problem. I don't doubt that this is a real problem, but I'd really like some one to flesh out that part of the article.

Roadrunner (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Reply

The article as it appears is nonsense.

The differential origin of neutrinos is simply not considered.

The proton-proton neutrino emission, detected by SAGE & GALLEX, is about 90% normal.

The Be electron-capture reaction, predominant in the Homestake experiment, is essentially absent, accounting for the disproportionately low measurement of neutrino flux in the medium energy range.

The B decay reaction neutrinos are moderately depressed, about 40-50% of normal and contribute to the markedly diminished neutrino flux found at Homestake.

The neutral current reactions of the later experiments coupled to the "flavor changes" in neutrinos do not explain away the above observations but rather obscure them in favor of a speculative resolution of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.164.28 (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Reply

If I am right, then the Charge of Solar wind is not Neutral. Because, Hydrogen + Hydrogen to form Deuterium then Helium there remains One extra charge of + to be changed to neutron and hence a positron to emerge and one stray electron. On the process, I would say, a lot of neutrinos are required. They probably are converted from Electron positron fusion or maybe gamma conversions. I see TWO neutrinos embedded in Deuterium each, at least two bound, (maybe up to eight), in Helium, associated in the proton neutron interaction. The neutrinos come from electron positron fusion or proton neutron +positron conversion. So, the total amount of particles is ok. as electron + positron neutrinos are used and charge is conserved. All fusion energy created stray neutrinos, light, and driven outcharge ions are expelled. So, that deficit measure shows incorrelation of data. Reason is, it is a ballanced system in theory on charge and neutrinos. So neutrinos in nuclei. do we really know? --Wikistallion (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Reply

The solar neutrino problem is a triggering event of the plot in Arthur C. Clarke's novel The Songs of Distant Earth . Does it deserve a "The solar neutrino problem in popular culture" section in the article?--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

Definitely. Please add one. 2001:9E8:4639:B800:A560:D4AA:5662:3918 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

The article reads:

They are nevertheless hard to detect, because they interact very weakly with matter, traversing the whole Earth as light does thin air.

Everything is clear to me, and I know all idiomatic phrases containing "thin air" but what does it mean here - the air containing less oxygen than normal or a thin layer of air? I think the latter, so I will edit it accordingly. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Reply