Super-Kamiokande: Super-Proof for Neutrino Non-Existence

1.- Fantasia.

One can agree or disagree with Waltz Disney's philosophy used in his characters, but there is a world wide consensus that "Fantasia" is Disney's conception.

Twentieth century Physic's equivalent of "Fantasia" has been the neutrino. During the last 67 years (1931-1998), some of the most fantastic explanations and experiments were invented involving neutrinos: Pauli's creation to save SR's inability to explain energy and momentum conservation in the historic RaE experiments (1).

And the largest wonder of the neutrino world is the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector buried in Japan. Yet it is not alone. Other exotic detectors can be found in different places all around the globe.

Hundred of millions of dollars have been and are constantly spent on the Neutrino "problem." The great difference between the two Fantasias is that the Disney Fantasia consistently provides profit to its investors, while neutrino Fantasia spends money without positive results. Super-Kamiokande has made an exception to this rule and we will show in this paper, it actually becomes the ultimate proof of neutrino "non-existence".

The Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector will ultimately be relegated to one of the great exotic wonders of 20th century physics.

2.- Super-K's Published Paper

The paper that contains the results obtained by the Super-Kamiokande Neutrino Detector is published in:

126 authors and 19 famous institutions support the conclusions shown in the paper submitted to Physics Review Letters to be published, and publish they will.

The paper's authors publish their interpretation of the data, but they didn't publish the "raw" data. Scientific experimental papers should publish the raw data. The authors interpretation is interesting but could be wrong or misleading, as it is in this case. Their hiding of the data lends us to believe that the Super-Kamiokande Collaboration is more of a Secret Society (3) and they want to support the neutrino hypothesis to sustain SR at any cost - even if it means doing so without any scientific bases.

Following the abstract the paper states:

"The neutrino plays a crucial role in both astrophysics and particle physics. This report is on measurements of solar neutrinos that are produced in the core of the sun through nuclear reaction chains."

If the reader of this paper wants to know more about the fantasies that follow, they need to go to the original paper where you will find "Once upon a time a Super-Kamiokande Neutrino Detector ..........."

We heard it thousands of times: the neutrino exists. The construction of the detector was designed to detect neutrinos from the sun because they exist. They didn't construct the detector to try to detect something "postulated as hypothesis" due to the SR equation's failure to explain energy conservation, as a truly scientific endeavor should. The detector was made to detect the "qualities" of the neutrino: its daytime or nighttime flux, the annual flux variation taking account the Earth eccentricity, its mass, its magnetic field, its "oscillation" (See EndNote), etc.

3.- The Failures

To obtain some of the data used in their paper, the author's needed to "detect" neutrino flux and herein lies the first failure: they only "detected" 38% (a 263% smaller than expected) of the total solar neutrino flux predicted. This is not always true with other detectors. Some times they "detect" more neutrinos, some times less, depending on "special neutrinos" or neutrinos emitted by different atomic reactions. But the average always is around 1/3 of the predicted flux (2).

The second failure, though small, is the daytime flux compared with the nighttime flux. At least, the nighttime flux should be equal to the daytime flux, or slightly less. But here, the contrary happens.

The nighttime flux is 2% larger than the daytime flux.

Looking at Fig 3 in the original paper, the numbers of events don't follow the annual variation due to the earth's eccentricity. It is the contrary. This means that when the Earth is far away from the sun, the measured flux is larger - even though it should be smaller.

The expected variation is 7% maximum, and the measured variation is 26% maximum, or 370% larger. They don't say this very clearly for to tell the truth, would be to admit failure.

The first failure, the 1/3 of the value (263% smaller) for neutrinos detected, and the other failure, the 26% (370% larger) of variation due to eccentricity are the most glaring failures in the paper up to this point. But they don't stop there.

The greatest failure will be shown after making a close examination of Fig. 2 that follows:

They say clearly: one obtains a clear peak from the solar neutrinos. We will also show clearly that the curve as it is plotted in Fig. 2 is misleading to the reader or observer. We will show this in a series of steps.

First, we will analyze a wide angular interval at two different positions. We will suppose that 37 degrees (cos 37 0.8) is the interval where the signal event is coming from the sun. This is not technically true, but we want to clearly show that even taking a wide theta angle there is more signal events when this same angle (37^o), or interval, is taken close to 90^o.

Counting, the events from theta = 0 to theta 37 degrees (cos = .8) we have the following sum: 0.24 + 0.179 + 0.163 + 0.134 + 0.132 + 0.118 + 0.112 + 0.105 = 1.183 event/day.

Taking the same interval of 37 degrees from theta = 60 degrees to theta = 97 degrees we count 27 events. The average of the values is 0.095 and 27 x 0.095 = 2.565, that is, 2.565/1.183 = 2.17 times the value in the first interval, that "correspond to the sun direction." That is to say, the interval between theta = 60 degrees and theta = 97 degrees contains 2.17 times more events than the interval between theta = 0 degrees (cos theta = 1) and theta = 37 degrees (cos theta = 0.8). We mention the last interval as the "sun direction," evidently a very wide interval!

Looking at Fig. 3, we cannot see the peak favoring the sun direction! It is the contrary. In ONE day there are more events in many other directions than from the sun direction!

What the sun direction mean? What is the angle "defined" for the sun direction: 37 degrees, 26 degrees or less? Technically, it is at theta = 0 but there, there are no events, and consequently our argument above makes sense.

As shown in Fig. 3, if we take the first interval of 10 degrees (0-10 degrees) as the sun direction, that is closer to fact, there are 0.24 event/day while in the second interval (10-20 degrees), there are 0.2625 event/day that is larger than in the first interval and it is not in the sun direction.

In the third interval there are 0.4405 events and in the fourth interval 0.44 events, etc.

It is easy to see that all intervals that follow the first, contain more events than the first one. Simply put, there are more events in each interval than in the sun direction.

Fig. 2 tries to mislead us and will mislead many Physicists. At least, it is accepted by 126 paper's authors.

It is not true that 0.24 event/day have their origin from the sun. Contained in the 0.24, is the summation of all the neutrino-like reaction produced by rock (R), cosmic rays (C) and the spallation (Sp) (Fig. 5), as remaining contamination after the application of all special techniques to suppress them.(3) The cosine function was chosen because the cosine compresses the first interval of 10^o that "correspond" to the "sun direction" showing this as a peak. Clearly this peak doesn't exist as it is shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 after expanding cosine of 10^o and 20^o.

Fig. 4 - Expanding the cos, and taking the same quantity of events at the different angle the "peak" disappears.

To show the fallacy involving the use of cos theta we ask the following: why is not used sin of theta? This will of course show the "peak" at 90^oand the neutrinos are coming from 90^o with respect to the sun direction regarding the argument used in the original paper with respect to the cos theta!! Of course, this is what Fig. 3 shows without neutrinos!

The neutrino changes direction according to the trigonometric function used!

Want neutrinos from the sun? Use cos theta. Want neutrinos at 90 degrees? Use sin theta.

Even though the largest systematic error comes from the uncertainty of the angular resolution, between 70 and 110 degrees, there are 4 intervals of 10 degrees with 7 dots in each interval. This means that each dot is separated from its neighbor by 1.43 degrees. There is no technical reason to suppose that this same angular separation of 1.43 degrees between dots is not the same for all other intervals. The event in the first interval and in all other intervals were measured with at least the same 1.43 degrees of angular resolution, [or the values used in Fig. 4, for example] All 0.24 events do not have the same angle (3).

If we take the total 7.6 event/day between 0 and 180 degrees and divide this by the 0.24 event/day at the 10 degrees interval, this supposedly represents the events coming from the sun direction, the ratio is overwhelmingly inverse. 0.24 event/day is only 3.16% of all events detected, and this as "background,"(4) represents 96.84%. In other words, if we divide 7.6 event/day by 0.24 event/day accepted from the sun direction, we get 31.6 times more signal events than in the sun direction. If we accept (3) 0.6, then the percentages are 8 and 92 respectively.

Looking alternatively at Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 we see in Fig. 5 that the sun direction coincides with the larger contamination R from the rock at = 90^o, = 180^o and = 270^o. We pointed out three notable positions but, really, this happen continuously between = 0^o and =360^o. That is to say, many event/day at theta = 0 degrees are similar to neutrino reactions, but are not coming from solar neutrinos. Also, cosmic ray contamination increases the signal events at = 0 degrees. This contamination could be estimated looking the interval between 170 and 180 degrees, where the cosmic rays produce 0.09 events as neutrino-like reactions at = 180 degrees (cos = -1). Of course, we pointed out that this position as an illustrative example, but as we said before, this happen at all positions.

If we subtract the number of events at position = 0 degrees, 0.09 (with = 0^o) from 0.24, the value of 0.24 is reduced to 0.15 event/day. The contamination between = 0^o and 360^o (R, Sp) mentioned above increases the apparent signal events from the sun. Supposing that this introduces a total of only 0.05 neutrino-like event/day in the 0.15 remaining mentioned above, we obtain the final value of 0.1 event/day, subtracting 0.05 from 0.15. This represents a signal of only 6%, not the reported 38%.

If we take 0.6 events as the value, we need to look the interval between 160^o-180^o where there is 0.266 events that subtracted from 0.6 giving 0.334. This only represents a signal of 21%, not 38% as