SN 1987A and the Neutrino
by Ricardo L. Carezani
Let us concentrate on one of the *key* phrases in the major publication on the evidence for neutrinos during the 1987 supernova explosion:
“…The coincidence between the two results provides OVERWHELMING evidence that the neutrinos, formed at the instant the supernova’s core collapsed, did INDEED come from this start”.
Great science indeed! We suppose what we are trying to prove: neutrinos! Regardless of the circularity of this phrase, let us look at the facts.
Looking at the Data
The Supernova’s light was registered on a photographic plate took on the night of January 24, starting at 24.06 Universal Time (UT) (1 h 26 m 24 s) and finishing its routine exposure at 4 h 12 m. A similar photograph was taken 25 hours earlier at exactly the same place. On it, the supernova was no brighter than 12th magnitude. There is no trace of light from a stellar explosion on this plate. This is day 23 at minute, 0 h (UT) more or less. I don’t have the exact duration but normal exposure time for this type of photographic plate is more or less 3 hours. That is, the supernova’s light didn’t arrive at Earth until around 3 o’clock.
The fact is that we really don’t know exactly at what time the supernova light arrived on Earth. The first supposed neutrino burst registered at Mont Blanc was at 2 h 52 m 36.8 s. If neutrinos arrived before the supernova’s light, then they traveled *faster* than the light speed. If neutrinos arrived after the Supernova’s light, they traveled *slower* than the light speed. But whether they were “faster” or “slower” doesn’t change the fact that they should arrive simultaneously at each device. If the supernova light arrived precisely at the last minute registered on the photographic plate, there is the following fact which needs explanation: Neutrinos arriving at Mont Blanc were not detected at IMB, KAMIOKANDE II, and at SOUTH DAKOTA. The neutrinos were detected by 1 of 4 devices, or by 25%. This gives us the first fact:
|FACT 1||The supposedly “OVERWHELMING” evidence is reduced to very weak evidence: %25 of the neutrino detectors reported activity.|
Neutrinos arrived at IMB 6 seconds later than at Kamiokande II, but, as the experimenter says, “within the uncertainty of the latter’s timing”, even though this is not accepted by many physicists as we will see. Accepting this doubtful simultaneity of arrival time, we still have the fact that neutrinos were not detected at MONT BLANC and SOUTH DAKOTA. Thus:
|FACT 2||Accepting that there *is* simultaneity between Mont Blanc and Kamiokande II, the evidence is only 50%, which is not too OVERWHELMING.|
It is assumed that 10 billion neutrinos per square centimeter pass through the earth per second. Given that SN 1987A is around 180,000 light years from the earth, an equivalent solar mass of 10 to 15 percent must be converted in the supernova to neutrinos in order to receive the *assumed* number of neutrinos.
Where is the fantastic new mechanism needed to create the incredibly large amount of 10 billion neutrinos per square centimeter from such an incredible distance? This mechanism, besides having no explanation, produces results that are dissimilar to known solar mechanisms. Thus fact 3:
|FACT 3||No mechanism given to explain the incredible number of neutrinos *assumed* to have arrived on earth.|
To explain the neutrinos detected at Kamiokande II 12 seconds later than the first burst, “a neutrino sphere, which is only some tens of kilometers in radius” trapped the neutrinos and then released them several (12) seconds after the initial burst. This is not totally true because there are other neutrinos bursts detected at Kamiokande II and at IMB, with different arrival times. In all, there are a total of 19 bursts: 11 at Kamiokande and 8 at IMB.
This simply means that the “neutrino sphere” blow out neutrinos at many different times. No one could explain the fantastic hypothesis of how the sphere trapped particles without mass, or what is worst, without electric charge, and release them at different times.
|FACT 4||No explanation given for the neutrino sphere. (Meaning: if we can only detect 1 out of billions and billions and billions what fantastic device can trap them, and then release them? Was the universe different there than it is here for the supernova explosion?)|
The uncertainty concept of arrival time between IMB and Kamiokande II is irrelevant. Each device controls time independently, meaning time is independent between devices. Yet, somehow “Universal Time” is claimed to be known to extreme accuracy between each device.
Supposing we adjust the arrival time of IMB to be that of Kamiokande II. This would eliminate the uncertainty of arrival time. If we place the IMB burst at 41.3 s and the Kamiokande II burst at 35 s, then, superpose the line and two dots, we can see that there are coincidence in the first, second and fifth burst(more or less). That is, from 8 bursts there is coincidence in three bursts. But remembering that there are a total of 19 bursts, then there are only three coincidences out of a total of 19 bursts.
The uncertainty argument is not valid because using it makes the coincidence argument very weak. And remember: no phenomena was recorded in the other two devices. This leads us to:
|FACT 5||Extremely tenuous explanation for proof of coincidence.|
The importance given to this phenomenon – the sequential time of neutrinos arrival – is an hypothesis by itself. But this hypothesis destroys arrival time uncertainty, and as consequence we get the most convincing fact:
|FACT 6||NO NEUTRINOS ARRIVED SIMULTANEOUSLY AT ANY OF THE 4 DEVICES.|
Finally, the most damning evidence we have found for the solar neutrino and SN1987A is the following: It is accepted that around 20 (19) neutrinos (11 at Kamiokande and 9 at IMB) were detected from the supernova, and it is accepted that 10 billion neutrinos per square centimeter per second pass through the Earth coming from the Sun. (all calculations being based on the Sun).
I will accept that the phenomenon took 12 seconds and that the events were detected by only two devices.
Now we will use logic and arithmetic:
If 10 billion neutrinos per square centimeter per second yield 20 neutrino reactions in two devices (especially designed for neutrino detection) in 12 seconds, the number of neutrino reactions in 24 hours in two devices is:
(60 * 60 * 24 * 20) / 12 = 144,000 neutrinos events per DAY.
And you say:
Therefore, we should receive less than 20 neutrino events per day and, calculating using the neutrino hypothesis from the Supernova, this means that we should detect 144,000 events EVERY DAY.
I am aware of the argument describing the energy relation between neutrinos from the Supernova and the Sun. The devices are designed to detect neutrinos from the Sun and the argument might seem irrelevant. But, even accepting an extreme difference, the quantity can be reduced, at maximum, by a factor of 10, thus yielding 14,400 events EVERY DAY.
|FACT 7||Neutrino existence using SN 1987A – yields an absurd conclusion: namely that 14,000 neutrino events per day must be observed in solar neutrino detectors in order to say that the explosion of SN 1987A yielded neutrinos.|
Putting together all 7 facts, the *overwhelming* neutrino evidence is replaced by an overwhelming evidence of “the pharaoh’s science” (i.e. nothing).
(For those of you not familiar with the pharaoh’s science”, you can perform it yourself with a table and ruler: measure an arbitrary number of table parts, use an arbitrary equation, and come up with PI. Anyone can do it! Really!!)
(Of course, this says nothing about whether we could really detect neutrinos in the first place! But this FAQ sticks to the facts, regardless one’s belief in the neutrino)