KamLAND-experiment and Soliton-like Nuclear Georeactor. Part 1. Comparison of Theory with Experiment

We give an alternative description of the data produced in the KamLAND experiment, assuming the existence of a natural nuclear reactor on the boundary of the liquid and solid phases of the Earth’s core. Analyzing the uncertainty of antineutrino spectrum of georeactor origin, we show that the theoretical (which takes into account the soliton-like nuclear georeactor) total reactor antineutrino spectra describe with good accuracy the experimental KamLAND-data over the years of 2002-2007 and 2002-2009, respectively. At the same time the parameters of mixing ({\Delta}(m21)^2=2.5\cdot 10^-5 eV^2, tan^2{\theta}12=0.437) calculated within the framework of georeactor hypothesis substantially differ from the parameters of mixing ({\Delta}(m21)^2=7.49\cdot 10^-5 eV^2, tan^2{\theta}12=0.436) obtained in KamLAND-experiment for total exposure over the period of 2002-2009. By traingulation of KamLAND and Borexino data we have constructed the coordinate location of soliton-like nuclear georeactors on the boundary of the liquid and solid phases of the Earth core. Based on the necessary condition of full synchronization of geological (magnetic) time scale and time evolution of heat power of nuclear georeactor, which plays the role of energy source of the Earth magnetic field, and also the strong negative correlation between magnetic field of the solar tachocline zone and magnetic field of the Earth liquid core (Y-component) we have obtain the estimation of nuclear georeactor average heat power ~30 TW over the years 2002-2009.

💡 Research Summary

The paper proposes an alternative interpretation of the KamLAND reactor antineutrino data by invoking a natural, soliton‑like nuclear georeactor located at the boundary between the Earth’s liquid outer core and solid inner core. The authors argue that high‑density actinide compounds (uranium and thorium carbides or oxides) could have segregated into this thin (~2 km) shell during early planetary differentiation, providing the fuel for a self‑regulating fast neutron wave. The reactor operates without traditional control rods; its safety is ensured by the long β‑decay delay (τβ≈3.3 days for the Feoktistov ²³⁹Pu cycle, τβ≈39.5 days for the Teller‑Ishikawa‑Wood ²³³U cycle) which is orders of magnitude larger than the delayed‑neutron production time. This disparity creates an intrinsic feedback: any increase in neutron flux burns fissile material faster, lowering the flux, while a decrease allows fissile isotopes to accumulate, restoring the flux.

Using diffusion‑approximation kinetic equations, the authors derive a soliton‑like concentration wave for neutrons and fissile isotopes. The phase velocity u is limited by the inequality u τβ / 2L ≈ (8/3√π) a⁴ exp(−64 π a²/9), where a² depends on the ratio of equilibrium to critical fissile concentrations. For realistic diffusion lengths (L≈5 cm) the maximal velocities are ~3.7 cm day⁻¹ (U‑Pu cycle) and ~0.31 cm day⁻¹ (Th‑U cycle).

The key phenomenological claim is that such a reactor would emit antineutrinos with a spectrum that, when added to the known contributions from Japanese power reactors, ²³⁸U and ²³²Th decay chains, reproduces the KamLAND observed spectrum across the full energy range. The authors present a figure (Fig. 2) showing excellent agreement between the combined model (including a 30 TW georeactor component) and the experimental points, in contrast to the standard three‑source model.

A central point of contention is the upper limit on georeactor power reported by the KamLAND collaboration (W ≤ 6.2 TW at 90 % C.L.). The authors argue that this limit assumes fixed neutrino oscillation parameters (Δm²₁₂≈7.5×10⁻⁵ eV², tan²θ₁₂≈0.56) and neglects the large (~100 %) uncertainty in the georeactor antineutrino spectrum arising from the soliton dynamics. Incorporating this uncertainty into a maximum‑likelihood χ² analysis expands the allowed power to ~30 TW and yields a different set of oscillation parameters (Δm²₁₂≈2.5×10⁻⁵ eV², tan²θ₁₂≈0.44).

The authors further triangulate the georeactor’s geographic location by combining KamLAND and Borexino data, concluding that the source must lie on the core‑mantle boundary. They link the hypothesized power fluctuations (on timescales of years to centuries) to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field, suggesting that the georeactor supplies the energy needed for the geodynamo. They cite a strong negative correlation between the solar tachocline magnetic field and the Y‑component of the Earth’s core field as supporting evidence.

In the broader geophysical context, the paper addresses the “missing heat” problem: global heat flow estimates (30–44 TW) exceed the radiogenic contribution (~19.5 TW) by 10–25 TW. The authors propose that a 30 TW georeactor accounts for this deficit. They acknowledge the thermal inertia of the Earth (relaxation time ≈10⁹ yr), emphasizing that present surface heat flux does not directly reflect contemporaneous core power.

Overall, the manuscript integrates nuclear reactor physics, neutrino oscillation phenomenology, and geophysical observations into a unified hypothesis. While the soliton‑like reactor concept is theoretically intriguing, the paper lacks quantitative constraints on actinide concentrations, detailed modeling of wave stability under realistic core conditions, and independent experimental validation of the proposed antineutrino flux. Future high‑precision geoneutrino detectors and seismic studies of core composition will be essential to test the viability of the proposed natural georeactor.