Talk:Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
What is the observed neutrino flux in this detector, in neutrinos per day? What fraction is solar, atmospheric, cosmological? If a supernova happened in our galaxy, what would the be expected number of detected neutrinos? What if in another galaxy? linas 03:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very roughly 20 solar neutrinos per day, one atmospheric neutrino every ten days, one relic supernova neutrino every twenty years. Supernova 1987A would have produced several dozen events, a closer supernova would produce thousands. Flying fish 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! Could I convince you to add a section of this sort to the article? To me, at least, having a feel for the numbers like this gives a much better idea of what is possible and what is not. linas 16:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Where do the oscillations take place?
This article says that neutrinos change types as the neutrinos travel through the sun. The Solar neutrino problem article says that they change types along the way to Earth. Someone please fix this inconsistency. Ken Arromdee 02:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed. linas 03:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- This should not have been "fixed". The neutrinos do change on their way to the Earth from the core of the sun, but almost all of the oscillation occurs inside of the sun as the solar density changes, through the MSW effect. Flying fish 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it really "solved"?
The article claims that SNO detects a number of neutrinos that is on par with that predicted by the standard model (of solar interactions, not the other one). However, this page states that SNO detects about 20 events from the sun a day. Is this the predicted amount that one would expect? It sounds low, at least in comparison to the numbers I seem to remember being bandied about before construction started.
Using the numbers here, it implies that about 12 of the detected neutrinos are muon or tau flavors. Yet due to the fact that the oscillation is time dependent as the detector moves from facing the sun to facing away, this number changes in a statistically significant way. So why was it not possible to "solve" the problem in the past using a "normal" electron flavour detector and looking for this change? Or is this how SK did it?
Maury 12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean that the oscillation is time dependent. For one thing the oscillations take place inside of the sun, and that's not changing too much. For another thing, the detector is just a big tank of water, regardless of whether it is on the side of the Earth facing the sun or the opposite side it can't really be said to be "facing" the sun. The experiment has searched for "day-night" effects which could presumably be caused by the neutrinos passing through the matter of the Earth but all such measurements have been consistent with no day-night effect.
- What makes the problem "solved" is that the detector can simultaneously measure the flux of all three neutrino flavours through the neutral current interaction and the electron flavour through the charged current interaction. The flux of all three types is consitent with that predicted by the standard solar model and the flux of electron type neutrinos is greatly suppressed. Flying fish 04:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I took a number of photos inside the observatory a couple of years ago as a student there. Can I post them here as my own copyright, or is this top secret? Hbar.cc (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Benjamin Franklin Medal
I have edited this link. The reason is that the original link pointed to a article about the RSA's Benjamin Franklin Medal which the director of SNO did not receive. The link now points to the Franklin Institute which awards the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Physics which he did. Wilmot1 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral current detection
Article now claims that free neutrons from D photodissociation are detected directly by D capture! Official site says this is unlikely (25%), due to low D cross section for neutrons (of course) so plans are made to use He-3 and Cl-35 to capture thermalized neutrons. . Was that ever done? The 6 MeV figure in the article does seem to be the energy difference between D+n and T, as article says. Other reactions give other energies. SBHarris 05:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fix Number of Citations Link
Can anyone help fix the citation for the number of times SNO articles have been referenced? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory#cite_note-3. The link does not seem to produce any results. --papageno (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"largest manmade underground cavity in the world"
I don't think this is correct. The Germans have large manmade caverns for oil storage. The SNO cavity seems only about 20 m wide, as judged from the artists drawing. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. Found a reliable reference for the claim, which added an important caveat: at that depth. There are lots of larger cavities, but they're all substantially shallower. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Just to note that the Nobel Prize was actually awarded to "Art McDonald and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory collaboration" This was in the official citation press release. Acknowledging the collaboration should perhaps be made here and on McDonald's page. I hesitate to do that without a discussion. Bdushaw (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)