Nuclear Decay May Vary With Earth-Sun Distance 418
KentuckyFC writes "We've long thought that nuclear decay rates are constant regardless of ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields). So that makes it hard to explain two puzzling experiments from the 1980s that found periodic variations over many years in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226. Now a new analysis of the raw data says that changes in the decay rate are synchronized with each other and with Earth's distance from the sun. The physicists behind this work offer two theories to explain why this might be happening (abstract). First, some theorists think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick. What makes the whole story even more intriguing is that for years physicists have disagreed over the decay rates of several isotopes such as titanium-44, silicon-32, and cesium-137. Perhaps they took their data at different times of the year?"
Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this have any ramifications for carbon dating?
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
I dated graphite once, she wasnt very original, kinda flaky, and left dark marks on me... Diamonds, is still playing hard to get though...
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Funny)
There's a joke in here somewhere about nanowires being phallic and nanotubes, but I'm far to mature to make it.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Diamonds are generally best friends, not dating material.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
Diamonds are generally best friends, not dating material.
No, dogs are best friends around here. What women read /.?
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Dogs read Slashdot?!
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
Diamonds are not, in fact, forever
Under normal temperature and pressure conditions, diamond is not the most stable form of carbon - graphite is. Using thermodynamic arguments and building a free energy curve, one can show that some fraction of a diamond must decay to graphite in order to achieve a minimum energy state. It does take a very long time for this to happen - geologic time - but even a "long time" is not forever. If you aren't that patient, heat the diamond up to, say, 1500 C to speed things up. Oh, but be sure to do that in the absence of oxygen, because diamond burns just like other forms of carbon.
Some references: [1] [uoguelph.ca], [2] [everything2.com], [3] [wikipedia.org]
openings for little known facts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Diamond: When you only want the best for your grill.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So what you are saying is that even though we may all aspire to have a diamond, it is something you can't really hold onto because it will either overreact to something, burn out, or eventually become a stable graphite anyway (which is what we should have been looking for to begin with).
Man, how far can we drag out these relationship analogies?
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea that a diamond will decay into graphite in geologic time is a popular fiction. The activation energy barrier for the diamond-graphite transition is high enough that substantial decay at STP will take far longer than the Earth will last, and the time scale is therefore not geologic. Several samples of diamond have been found that crystallized before the formation of the solar system, and some carbonados [wikipedia.org] exhibit Xenon isotope concentrations in inclusions that suggest that they formed in distant supernovas and fell to earth.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Funny)
Would the time scale be universal instead? : p
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Hi honey, I got you this fabulous graphite ring. It lasts longer than a diamond! Will you marry me?
Diamonds burn? (Score:4, Interesting)
Trivia: Believe it or not, I once asked a chemist, who studied diamonds, the temperature at which they burned. His reply was that they didn't. Instead, according to him, at about 2000 F they break down into graphite and then the graphite burns.
Diamonds are Forever... (Score:5, Funny)
...only if they maintain the correct Bond.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, what's the problem with burning diamonds in oxygen?
Spoken like someone who has never experienced a diamond mine fire firsthand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, you can now only date graphite. Diamonds are no longer acceptable dating material.
Obviously. Once the guy gives the girl a diamond they are past dating.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
On a timescale of billions of years, however, the luminosity of the Sun has increased substantially, and if that accelerates radioactive decays by some neutrino interaction then the uranium-lead clock would be off and the Earth might be considerably older than we thought.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
The variation would be over the course of a year, and carbon dating works on a timescale of centuries to millennia; it would even out.
Is that assuming the only measurable factor is based upon the distance from the sun? Because that would seem to be an incomplete description of radiation, especially since the article mentioned the possibility of solar flare activity causing the decay rate to change.
The old axiom of "The more I learn, the less I know" could very well hold true for this subject matter.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
At least with regards to carbon dating, it has been known for some time that strict carbon dates are not accurate. These are referred to as "uncalibrated" dates. The explanation that I remember seeing is that the atmospheric ratio of C14/C12 has not been constant over the earth's history, but this may be a factor as well. At any rate, carbon dates for at least the last 15,000 years can be calibrated - that is, the concentration of C14 in the object being tested can be compared to the concentration of C14 in an object of a known age (e.g. from tree rings, ice cores, documented historical sites) to get a more accurate assessment of an objects age. In some cases this can lead to objects being considerably older than originally thought. For example, an uncalibrated carbon date of 9,000BC corresponds to a calibrated carbon date of nearly 11,000BC.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, I'm a creationist and I think this is fascinating. For the record, I don't care how old the universe is. The older it is the more incredible I find things. Things never seem to quit getting bigger or smaller. Or older or newer. As I understand it (I am no quantum physicist) the Plank Length is pretty much the smallest thing that we can account for right now, yes?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[...] nutrino [...] natrino [...] nutino
Geez, man! Snap out of it!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes it's far more likely that this annual periodic wobble of a few percent is indicative of a past where carbon was a factor of 1000 times more radioactive than it is now, roasting the dinosaurs alive so they went extinct before they could leave the garden of Eden.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If this were an electromagnetic effect, we should be able to duplicate it in the lab. It's not hard to produce immense electromagnetic fields in the laboratory, and to subject radioactive samples to the most extreme of conditions. Yet as far as laboratory experiment has been able to determine, electric and magnetic fields, however strong they may be, d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not gravitational field strength? That could be checked (though not easily) on the moon...or an asteroid.
The standard model should be able to predict what effect changes in neutrino flux would produce. Changes in gravitational strength would be more difficult, as gravity hasn't been integrated into the standard model. Additionally, one would expect gravitational field strength to vary with the distance from the sun, so that matches. (Yes, earth's gravitational field is predominant by a large amount
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it is only these two isotopes that are mentioned, presumably because most other isotopes tested do not have this sort of periodic effect.
I stand corrected! From the paper:
Although there are hundreds of potentially useful nuclides whose half-lives have been measured, the data from many of the experiments we examined were generally not useful, most often because data were not acquired continuously over sufficiently long time periods.
So the possible ramifications of this increase!
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it is only these two isotopes that are mentioned, presumably because most other isotopes tested do not have this sort of periodic effect.
I wouldn't presume that. The very thing that makes this so interesting is that "the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earth's distance from the sun." To me, that makes it likely to be a general effect on all radioactive materials. I don't know if this will lead to anything that supports a young earth theory, but it'll be interesting to see what comes from it. The article also mentions:
It turns out, that the notion of that nuclear decay rates are constant has been under attack for some time. In 2006, Jenkins says the decay rate of manganese-54 in their lab decreased dramtically during a solar flare on 13 December.
This is a good example of how many holes there might be in our theories about the universe. We have been making measurements for a few 1000 years in one solar system (mostly just on one planet) and things that we don't see changing, like radioactive decay rates, we consider constant. It's exciting to think how much more there may still be to discover.
Engineering Ramifications? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good example of how many holes there might be in our theories about the universe. We have been making measurements for a few 1000 years in one solar system (mostly just on one planet) and things that we don't see changing, like radioactive decay rates, we consider constant. It's exciting to think how much more there may still be to discover.
This makes me wonder about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator [wikipedia.org]power sources on board the Voyager spacecraft, as they are based on the decay of radioactive material. Has our earth-centric understanding of the universe led us to build probes designed to push the boundaries of the solar system and continue into interstellar space, that will gradually lose power the further they get from the sun?
Whoops.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh if so, then we'll just have to fix that with the next generation of probes. That's science for you.
Learning comes more often from misses than hits as misses are far more common.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note really because it is on the order of .1% .1%.
So if the power supply was going to last say 1000 years it would now only last 999. Most engineers would use a safety factor as small as
Those that do will soon find themselves unemployed.
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I understood correctly, the variance in decay rate between Earth's aphelion and perihelion is .1%. Earth's distance from the sun doesn't change by that much in astronomical terms. If we see a .1% variation over that relatively small distance, how different would the rate be at 100AU, or half-way to the nearest star? How do we know that radioactive isotopes decay at all if you get them far enough away from a star?
It's also not simply a matter of how long the power supply will last. Those generators work by converting the heat from each decay event into electricity, and if the rate of decay is less than it should be, then it will not produce continuous power.
I'm not saying that it's definitely a problem, I just think this raises interesting questions.
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:5, Informative)
If I understood correctly, the variance in decay rate between Earth's aphelion and perihelion is .1%. Earth's distance from the sun doesn't change by that much in astronomical terms...
But Earth's distance from the sun does change by more than 0.1% during its orbit:
Aphelion distance = 152.1 million km
Perihelion distance = 147.3 million km
So aphelion distance from the center of the sun is 3.2% greater than perihelion distance. Alternatively, both aphelion and perihelion differ from their mean by 1.6%.
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:4, Interesting)
What gives you the idea that the percentage change in distance has to equal the percentage change in decay rate? I would expect them to be related in an exponential or logarythmic way, but even if they were related linearly, that wouldn't mean that a 3.2 change in distance should mean a 3.2 change in decay rate.
What if the decay rate increases by .1 percent for every 4.8 million km? What if it increases by the square of the distance times some constant?
What you've pointed out here is kind of meaningless.
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:4, Informative)
I think you got it backwards. They think that neutrino flux slows down radioactive decay. As probe gets farther away from the sun, then it will decay faster.
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the rate of decay increases with distance from the sun, that would explain the accelleration -- faster decay means more heat being turned into power. The probes could be accelleration because they are overpowered.
It would also explain the better than expected performance of the thermocouple -- it only looks more efficient than it should be because we are starting off with more input heat than we think we are.
All of this is speculation, of course. I'm no physicist, and it's way to early to know what this discovery means.
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, doesn't wash. The probes are not in powered flight, they're simple ballistic projectiles. No ion engines at work, which might show the effects you suggest.
It would clearly be interesting to construct a probe to test this effect using a greater distance that the difference between the Earth's perihelion and apihelion
Re:Engineering Ramifications? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a variation in the Earth's average temperature over the same time that happens to be in sync?
Not in any one place. The Earth has enough heat sinks to prevent these small differences from making a difference.
That said, _seasonal_ temperature differences may in fact change the rate of nuclear decay. As chemical reactions are generally very dependent upon temperature, I am surprised that I have never heard of the possibility of nuclear decay being dependent as well having ever been studied.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the interests of learning, I propose we switch it off to see what happens.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Yes - but not enough to account for the difference between Joan Rivers' apparent and actual age.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
Yes - but not enough to account for the difference between Joan Rivers' apparent and actual age.
When nine-hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am more concerned about the other end of that - time-keeping --- the communications networks get their time hacks from clocks based upon the decay rate of isotopes (e.g. a cesium clock).
The cool thing is, if this periodical effect is a constant function, then we can adjust our clocks based upon this new knowledge -- making them more accurate over the long haul.
As for carbon dating, assuming what I said was true, I don't see why you could not apply the function to get a more accurate reading - not that car
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
I am more concerned about the other end of that - time-keeping --- the communications networks get their time hacks from clocks based upon the decay rate of isotopes (e.g. a cesium clock).
Caesium clocks have nothing to do with nuclear decay rates. They measure electron state transition times. You can relax now.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Funny)
They measure electron state transition times. You can relax now.
Why'd you tell him to relax?
Look, he just threw off a bunch of photons all over the place - and it was a forbidden transition!
Ok, so you clean up the mess now! :-)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Informative)
The communications networks get their time hacks from clocks based upon the decay rate of isotopes (e.g. a cesium clock).
It's actually based on the frequency of a transition in cesium, but the point is that these transitions are sensitive to the fine structure constant. If some field from the sun is changing that, it should be detectable in atomic clocks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually based on the frequency of a transition in cesium, but the point is that these transitions are sensitive to the fine structure constant. If some field from the sun is changing that, it should be detectable in atomic clocks.
Then an atomic clock in orbit around the Earth should speed up when it is nearest the Sun, and slow down when it is behind the Earth?
Would Radioisotope thermoelectric generators [wikipedia.org] generate more energy when closer to the Sun, than away from the Sun, or simply shielded from it?
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
The Fine structure [wikipedia.org] addressed in this article is not the hyperfine structure [wikipedia.org] which cesium clocks use.
Seriously : No (Score:5, Informative)
Does this have any ramifications for carbon dating?
Seriously : No.
For 2 reasons.
I. - Effect on carbon
For now carbon isn't on the list of the elements that seem affected by the distance to the sun.
II. - Not a significant variation. :
in TFA, variation seem to be very well correlated with the distance *BUT* these variations are really small : only a small fraction of percent (~0.15%). To cite one of the commenters on TFA's blog thread
That said, itâ(TM)s not *terribly* unsettling to me; the variations are small (measurable,but small) and to me itâ(TM)s all part of the Wonderful World of the Weird that is QM.
If we discover that carbon is among the elements influenced by the sun too, those mere ~0.15% of variation will be insignificant compared to the skew that happens with varying concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere [wikipedia.org] (see wikipedia's graph of variation) - which already requires that we do calibrations anyway.
(Current carbon dating doesn't extrapolate the age purely by deducing the levels from the decay rate, but instead uses tables where corrections have been inserted based on the carbon dating of thing with known age)
So in short : for now it doesn't have any ramification and anyway it couldn't have any more than we already compensate for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, it makes you wonder whether other astronomical events could have had an impact. Suppose some supernova nearby blasted the earth with neutrinos and caused 10% of a sample of isotope to decay in seconds - then return to normal rates of decay? Suppose the sun drifted into some cloud of dark matter a billion years ago and that messed things up?
We always assume the laws of physics are the same everywhere. This is probably true at a fundamental level, but it doesn't mean we understand all the laws of ph
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are assuming that the neutrino flux from the sun is constant. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that this may have some effect on carbon 14 dating.
Cesium decay (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm more worried about the effect on Cesium decay. Did we accidentally base our definition of time on a variable rather than a constant?
it would explain a lot (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cesium decay (Score:4, Funny)
An old programming axiom now looks more true than ever:
"Variables don't and constants aren't"
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Interesting)
For what it's worth, my stepdaughter has a keychain toy with more memory and processing power than we went to the moon with. I have a PDA that processes and stores what would have taken...a skyscraper full of discrete transistors and core memory. Give or take, but the point of scaling down by multiple orders of magnitude is obvious.
Will we be evaporating nuclear waste next year? Nah. Do we have the possibility to develop the precursor technology in the next 10-20 years for properly disposing of stored long half-life waste 50 years down the road? Quite possibly. That makes nuclear waste storage much, much more practical.
After all, we don't necessarialy need MORE of the secret sauce. We may just need to concentrate it, tune it, shape it...or what have you to make it many times more effective. First we need to understand it thought :)
Does this remind anyone else of the 'rules' behind FTL drive in most sci-fi books? Ya-da ya-da gravity well means no FTL but once you move away from the singularity ... zooooooooom. Granted I'm now comparing sci-fi "physics" with a minor observed variation in real life....but shhhh!
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:5, Interesting)
I.e. no.
Re:Carbon Dating (Score:4, Funny)
But I live in Nebraska, you insensitive clod!
How To Test It (Score:5, Interesting)
First, some theorists think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies. That would certainly affect the rate of nuclear decay. Another idea is that the effect is caused by some kind of interaction with the neutrino flux from the sun's interior which also varies with distance. Take your pick.
You left out the best part of the paper, where they propose how to test these theories:
These conclusions can be tested in a number of ways. In addition to repeating long-term decay measurements on Earth, measurements on radioactive samples carried aboard spacecraft to other planets would be very useful since the sample-Sun distance would then vary over a much wider range. The neutrino flux hypothesis might also be tested using samples placed in the neutrino flux produced by nuclear reactors.
Sounds like we could test the latter relatively easily.
Also, Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere H. Jenkins!!!
Re:How To Test It (Score:4, Interesting)
My question would be, once they discover the cause, can we use that information? First application that comes to mind that I'd love to see is, if we can shorten something's half-life, can that be used to help dispose of radioactive nuclear waste, thereby removing the main objection to nuclear power?
Re:How To Test It (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How To Test It (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, kdawson and I have been discussing this. This is an interesting story but of course the research needs to be duplicated and checked, objections need to be raised and addressed and so on.
Cassini is a good example... for the past 11 years it's carried 30 kg of Pu-238 from Earth (1 AU) to Saturn (10 AU), and its decay has been its only source of electrical power. If the Earth's 3% annual variation in distance from the Sun causes a 0.4% variation in the half-life of radioactive silicon, wouldn't the 900% change in Cassini's solar distance caused, at the very least, a head-scratcher for mission control?
So I'm super-skeptical about this.
The hard part about running tests to confirm this alleged effect here on Earth is that it may take years to get convincing results. One might also put a few samples of radioactive materials and sensitive detectors on HEO satellites and get a 0.1% change in solar distance every few days. If there's a detectable difference in radioactive decay it could be statistically significant in a matter of weeks. Rather expensive test, though. My guess is there's a better explanation for the observed effect (seasonal changes in temperature/humidity on the detection equipment maybe) and after a handful of grad students write papers about their inability to replicate the effect, this will be dismissed and filed away. Still interesting though.
Silicon-32 Decay Variation (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No wonder why those things glow...
Pioneer Anomaly (Score:4, Interesting)
Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh... (Score:3, Funny)
dendrochronology! (Score:3, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology [wikipedia.org]
I pity the man who has to interrupt two scientists arguing about decay rates and tell them they were both right.
General relativity to the rescue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or are they simply looking for casual relationships where none actually exist. Perhaps the decay rate relates to the amount of pastafarians on earth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could perhaps the distance between the earth and the sun and the relationship for nuclear decay be in some way effected by the gravitational field fluctuations that occur as well? Time is dilated by gravity, so perhaps are we seeing a further proof of Special relativity?
Or are they simply looking for casual relationships where none actually exist. Perhaps the decay rate relates to the amount of pastafarians on earth.
Since the measurement and the material are both in the same location, time dilation would affect them both to the same extent, meaning that the detector would not be able to measure a difference in the half life.
Re:General relativity to the rescue? (Score:4, Funny)
Or are they simply looking for casual relationships where none actually exist. Perhaps the decay rate relates to the amount of pastafarians on earth.
This isn't Craigslist, chief.
Two counter-examples (Score:5, Insightful)
If you count the presence or absence of observation as part of "ambient conditions", there are two cases where nuclear decay rates are affected by ambient conditions: The quantum Zeno effect [wikipedia.org] and the quantum anti-Zeno effect. [wikipedia.org]
It's a trick! (Score:5, Funny)
Phlogiston (Score:5, Funny)
Now if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with my Phrenologist.
Fine structure constant (Score:5, Interesting)
In their theory, the Sun produces a scalar field which would modulate the terrestrial value of the electromagnetic fine structure constant EM.
The fine structure constant [wikipedia.org] (about 1/137) has been measured to a whopping 10 significant digits, one of the most precisely measure physical constants. If there is a seasonal variation enough to influence decay rates by .1%, wouldn't this show up in different experiments measuring the fine structure constant?
Re:Fine structure constant (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess I'll need even less nuclear fuel... (Score:4, Funny)
...stored on the interstellar star voyager I'm building, then.
Should be able to pack a few more women on-board that way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fundamental constant (Score:3, Funny)
First, some theorists think the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies.
If this is true, we get some fundamental variables besides $_, @_, etc.
my pick (Score:3, Insightful)
I use my own Occam's blade to cut off the first one and pick the second one.
But the data is awful (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, note that since the perihelion is right around Jan 1, only about eleven days after solstace-- this data equally well correlates with season.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't know that the neutrino flux is constant. Neutrinos are notoriously hard to detect and measure.
Radioactive waste (Score:4, Interesting)
Synchronized to r^2, not r (Score:5, Interesting)
This graph [arxivblog.com] seems to indicate that the correlation is between the decay rate and the radius of Earth's orbit squared, not just r.
Could it be that the correlation between decay rates is with Earth's orbital velocity [wikipedia.org], acceleration, or dTheta/dT (rate of change of the Earth/Sun vector due to Earth's elliptical orbit)?
Additionally, there seems to be a phase shift between peak r^2 and peak decay rates with the decay rate peak seemingly correlated with our peak acceleration toward the sun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems more likely that an r^2 variation indicates that it's a field-like effect, which drops off as 1/r^2 (e.g., neutrino flux).
Re:Synchronized to r^2, not r -- No. (Score:3, Insightful)
The authors just chose to plot vs r^2, rather than r. Since the data is noisy and Earth's orbit is only slightly elliptical, the data would correlate just as well to r.
"The Gods Themselves" (Score:3, Interesting)
One possible explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you told the authors? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything she touches, / Changes. (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA's frame of reference is the Earth's orbit about the Sun, and reports a small but significant correlation between aphelion - perihelion and decay rates of some radioactive nuclides. TFA suggests that the 4% change between Earth's closest approach to the Sun and its most distant point is a possible cause for the change in decay rates.
When the frame of reference is expanded to galactic distances, we find that Earth's aphelion point is coincidentally very close to a line drawn from the Sun to the center of the galactic core. So it could also be that some shielding or suppressive effect of the Sun's local environment is reducing decay rates when the Earth is behind the Sun relative to the galactic core.
Proposed hypothesis: the changes in radioactive decay rates are related in an unknown fashion to the annual changes in the geometry of the Earth - Sun - galactic core.
This could probably be ruled out with a couple of tests of the existing data:
Aphelion occurs on Jan 4, while Earth's fullest exposure to any presumed galactic core influence occurs on Dec 17. Does the data suggest that increased activity centers around aphelion, or 18 days earlier?
If TFA's heliocentric model is correct, the change in rates of decay from month to month will be a smooth sinusoidal curve over the course of the year. But if the galactic core is involved, the changes in rates of decay will depart from this since the ecliptic does not parallel the galactic plane, and the degree of the Earth's "exposure" to galactic core will vary in a more complex way. Does the data support either of these conjectures?
I'm not going to cite my references here: they would be a distraction. Key words for google: aphelion, perihelion, solstice, galactic core, "plane of the ecliptic", "galactic plane". Um, a quick review of high school trigonometry might be useful, too.
Kudos to all the researchers and lab assistants who contributed to this work. It sounds like years of seemingly mindless drudge data collection went into this database. Yet the results are stunning: something Out There is affecting "constants" that we thought were intrinsic and immutable. That changes things. That changes everything.
Short answer: no (Score:5, Informative)
Short answer: no.
Longer answer: nope.
Even longer answer:
1. Carbon isn't one of the isotopes that are affected by this.
2. The fluctuations have a period of about year, so they average out when you measure something over millenia.
3. The fluctuations are very very tiny, waay below one percent even. So basically even if you happened to take one extreme as your value, and in reality it was the opposite extreme, and even with "compound interest" so to speak... worst that could happen is that a 100,000 year old bone turns out to be "only" a bit over 99,000 year old. The creationists still aren't going to like it.
4. The variability in C14 production and distribution are much bigger than this fluctuation, and we learned to deal with those perfectly well. (C14 is constantly produced as neutrons from solar radiation knock off and replace a proton from an N14 atom, turning it into a C14 atom.)
5. The way we deal with those is by calibrating that dating. There's stuff that we already know when it happened, by other means (chronicles, geologic events, etc), and we can see how much C14 is left in stuff from that year. That lets you calibrate your C14 dating pretty damn well.
The last one also tells you why actually #2 is the only one that matters: we already calibrated for long intervals, and such fluctuations were already averaged into the calibration. This new discovery won't affect C14 dating at all. The effect is exactly zero. Null. Nada. Nix.
Of course, that won't stop young-Earth creationists from coming out of the woodwork, and waving yet another thing they don't understand as "proof" that science is wrong and their bible is the literal history of Earth. What else is new? No, seriously.
I figure everyone and everything has their place and role, though. The young-earth creationists' is simply to make everyone else look smart. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it ;)
Err... that's how science works, ya know? (Score:3, Informative)
Why is it funny? That's how science _works_. The whole framework is geared towards, basically, fixing past mistakes or refining what wasn't quite right.
No real scientist can ever assert something as the final word, the immutable absolute truth, the thing
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)