News: 0134480055

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

CNO Neutrinos From the Sun Are Finally Detected (syfy.com)

(Saturday August 08, 2020 @01:34PM (BeauHD) from the one-century-later dept.)


An anonymous reader quotes a report from SyFy:

> For the first time, scientists have [1]detected neutrinos coming from the Sun's core that got their start via the CNO process , an until-now theorized type of stellar nuclear fusion. [...] [2]The Borexino neutrino observatory is 1400 meters under the rock below the Gran Sasso mountain in Italy. It has an 8.5 meter wide nylon balloon filled with 280 tons of pseudocumene, surrounded by a tank of water, surrounded by over 2200 very sensitive photon detectors. They turned everything on, then waited. Over the course of July 2016 - February 2020 (1072 days), they painstakingly recorded all the events, and had to go through heroic efforts to prevent all manners of other reactions that also create little light flashes from interfering with their experiment. They also had to distinguish proton-proton chain neutrinos from ones made in the CNO cycle, but the neutrinos have different energies, which makes it possible to separate them out. They just [3]announced their results : They detected the CNO neutrinos! About 20 per day interacted with the pseudocumene -- 20 per day, when sextillions of them had passed through! -- about what you'd expect from theory.

>

> This is an important discovery for a lot of reasons. For one thing, while the proton-proton chain dominates in the Sun, in stars with more than about 1.3 times the Sun's mass the CNO cycle dominates (it kicks in strongly at higher temperatures), so knowing how it works in the Sun tells us about other stars. Also, the presence of heavier elements (what astronomers misleadingly call metals, meaning any element heavier than hydrogen and helium) can affect the fusion rate in the Sun's CNO cycle, and the amount of these metals isn't perfectly well known; different methods to measure them yield slightly different amounts, but enough to mess up what we know about the fusion in the core. This experiment agrees with ones that find a lower metal content. That has a ripple effect on a lot of other ideas, including details on how we think the Sun and planets formed, how the Sun ages, and how it will die. All that, from less than two dozen neutrinos a day, while countless more go undetected.



[1] https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/after-nearly-a-century-elusive-cno-neutrinos-are-finally-seen-from-the-sun

[2] https://www.lngs.infn.it/en/borexino

[3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.15115.pdf

For seriously? (Score:5, Funny)

by theJavaMan ( 539177 )

A Sun Microsystems logo on a story about the actual Sun?

I'm a millennial, but even I know that Sun Microsystems existed. They gave us Java, Solaris, and dashed hopes!

Re: For seriously? (Score:1)

by c6gunner ( 950153 )

Don't forget they also gave us "it's a Unix system!"

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Don't forget that was actually SGI [hhttps], not Sun.

Re: (Score:2)

by theJavaMan ( 539177 )

Link is broken, but I'm assuming you're referring to the (in)famous scene from Jurassic Park?

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

Wow. I have no idea how that link got destroyed like that. I did use C&P.

[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/Movie... [reddit.com]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/89p4n4/in_jurassic_park_the_infamous_its_a_unix_system_i/

Re: For seriously? (Score:1)

by c6gunner ( 950153 )

Yeah it was SGI. I realized that about 5 seconds after hitting aubmit, and immediately regretted my comment. Thanks.

Re: (Score:3)

by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

It's just a bug. Google raised the prices on their AI services so they had to replace the previous AI script known as BeauHD with some junky code written by a tween for a university assignment. As usual in those Computer Science 201 AI classes the code doesn't really produce perfect results the first 100 iterations.

Re: (Score:2)

by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 )

And in some cases, a salary.

Re: (Score:3)

by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 )

It's ridiculous, isn't it? Should have been a QNX logo of course.

Science! (Score:4, Insightful)

by timeOday ( 582209 )

This is the most sciency science article in a long time. Not in a bad jargony way, but in a "new observations of a physical process confirm one hypothesis while ruling out others" way.

indeed refeshing (Score:3)

by Texmaize ( 2823935 )

It was nice to again see an article discussing science and facts, instead of ideology. Over the years, slashdot has become new for people who think they are nerds, because it is trendy. This was a nice change

A report from SyFy? (Score:2)

by freeze128 ( 544774 )

SyFy? Is that the television channel that gives us professional wrestling and ghost hunting?

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

This entire story is a shit show starting with the Sun logo. Just delete it already.

Re: (Score:2)

by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 )

It's Phil Plait.

Re: (Score:2)

by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 )

Phil Plait who is a very respectable astronomer has been blogging with them for a long time now.

Phys.org article (Score:2, Informative)

by Anonymous Coward

[1]An article [phys.org] from a place other than the syfy channel.

[1] https://phys.org/news/2020-06-cno-fusion-neutrinos-sun.html

Re: (Score:2)

by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 )

Actually, the SyFy article is MUCH better.

Re: (Score:1)

by Anonymous Coward

It's longer and more explanatory generally, but it takes the finding as fact and doesn't mention that it has yet to be peer reviewed.

Re: (Score:2)

by Baloroth ( 2370816 )

Peer review is an important component of the scientific process, but it is not the sole determiner of fact or fiction. Many things that pass peer review are false, and many things that don't pass review are true. In this particular case, for example, the peer reviewers are less qualified to make a judgement about the fact of what was observed than the people who published the results. They probably can't do so, unless the paper makes a significant and obvious error in the analysis process, because the revie

Re: (Score:2)

by kbahey ( 102895 )

> An article from a place other than the syfy channel.

Strange as it is, the article on Syfy is written by someone who knows what he is talking about: [1]Phil Plait [wikipedia.org].

He started [2]BadAstronomy.com [wikipedia.org] about two decades ago, then moved it to various places, including Slate, Forbes, and now Syfy.

He also wrote a book called [3]Bad Astronomy [wikipedia.org] about the Moon Hoax.

You should also watch his [4]Astronomy Crash Course [youtube.com] on Youtube. Very informative.

Please mod my comment up so people know ...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait#Badastronomy.com

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Astronomy

[4] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPAJr1ysd5yGIyiSFuh0mIL

Just announced? (Score:2)

by habig ( 12787 )

How about back at the end of June, at the big conference in the field of neutrinos, rather than months later by the SyFy channel? Slides from talk: [1]https://indico.fnal.gov/event/... [fnal.gov] Video of talk: [2]https://indico.fnal.gov/event/... [fnal.gov]

[1] https://indico.fnal.gov/event/43209/contributions/187871/attachments/129210/158592/borexino_cno_neutrino2020.pdf

[2] https://indico.fnal.gov/event/43209/contributions/187871/attachments/129210/158705/Day2_Talk9_Ranucci_.m4v

Humility is the first of the virtues -- for other people.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes