Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give me that old time neutrino!
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 1 of 6 (421)
09-06-2001 4:37 PM


One of the arguments for a young universe involves neutrinos from the sun, and it goes like this:
An older sun of about 5 billion years would generate most of its energy from nuclear processes, while younger suns would generate some energy from other means, including gravitational contraction. Nuclear processes generate neutrinos, and so by measuring the arrival rate of neutrinos from the sun we can see if the intensity of nuclear reactions within the sun correspond to a young or old sun. We measure only 1/3 the amount of neutrinos expected for an older sun, and therefore the sun must be much younger than the 5 billion year figure cited by evolutionists.
This shortfall has long been known as the Solar Neutrino Problem. We didn't know why we weren't finding the expected number of neutrinos. Was our understanding of processes within the Sun flawed? Is the standard model of particle physics wrong? Are our measurements too inaccurate?
Recent research results suggest an answer.
There are three types of neutrino, the electron neutrino, which is the type generated within the sun, and the mu and tau neutrinos. Our neutrino detectors here on earth detect only the electron neutrino, and it is these detectors that measured only 1/3 the expected number.
It had long been suspected that the shortfall was due to neutrinos flipping from one type to another during the journey from the sun to the earth, so to check this possibility scientists enhanced a neutrino detector to also be sensitive to mu and tau neutrinos. The final total of neutrinos found by the improved detector equaled the total of electron neutrinos predicted to come from the Sun, neatly solving the conundrum.
Much research remains before this result can be considered confirmed, but it is a good example of the fate of much Creationist "evidence". Every scientific generation confronts its deep and imponderable mysteries at the frontiers of knowledge. Creationists love these scientific mysteries because they see them as evidence of God in action. Unfortunately for them, the history of science is of solving one previously intractable problem after another, and it seems likely the Solar Neutrino Problem is about to go the same route.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 09-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 11-30-2001]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Redwing, posted 10-06-2001 11:17 PM Percy has replied

Redwing
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 6 (432)
10-06-2001 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
09-06-2001 4:37 PM


I tend to agree--simply because science does not have an answer yet does not mean there is no answer. It is not wise to claim a "God of the gaps" who acts were we can't see, because our sight is continually expanding. What bothers me is that science seems to come up with a lot of evidence that "undoes" creationist objections to evolutionary theory, yet the creationists seem to refuse to acknowledge these advances. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I get, and it bothers me.
--Redwing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 09-06-2001 4:37 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 10-08-2001 9:03 PM Redwing has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 6 (433)
10-08-2001 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Redwing
10-06-2001 11:17 PM


Not all Creationists are familiar with science, and those who aren't cannot be faulted too much for adhering to Creationist viewpoints, primarily because of the large amount of Creationist misinformation out there. For every scientifically supported position there is a ready Creationist answer. Just a few common examples:
  • Science says that radiometric dating indicates an ancient earth, but radiometric dating is unreliable.
  • Science says there is no source of water for Noah's flood, but God created the heavens to separate the waters below from the waters above, and the waters above formed a canopy that later fell to become Noah's flood.
  • Science says that it takes millions of years for geologic layers to form, but the chaotic conditions during the flood were able to form them rapidly.
  • Science says that the fossils in the geologic column form a record of change and progression, but the geologic column exists nowhere in the world.
People to whom science is just a bunch of disconnected facts cannot be expected to judge relative merit. Creationism is consistent with the religious beliefs of conservative Christians and therefore much preferable to them.
--Percy
[This message has been edited by Percipient (edited 11-02-2001).]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Redwing, posted 10-06-2001 11:17 PM Redwing has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 6 (469)
11-20-2001 8:51 AM


yeah that whole firmament of water up in the sky buisiness how do they (creation scientists) explain (scientificaly) how it:
a) didn`t collapse gravitationaly?
b) didn`t block so much of the suns rays as to cause a nuclear winter type effect?
Just curious....

joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 6 (470)
11-20-2001 8:57 AM


The one I really love though is the...
"the sun is shrinking at a measureable rate so if the world is as old as scientists say extrapolating back the sun would be to big..."
mention evolution and they say "how do you know you weren`t there" but they feel that they can extrapolate back without the possibility of error, interesting that...

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 6 (502)
12-01-2001 10:56 AM


Thanks for heads up on the neutrinos, Perci.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024