The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Decay Rates 408
DarkKnightRadick writes "Current models for radioactive decay have been challenged by, of all sources, the sun. According to the article, 'On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.' This is important because the rate of decay is very important not just for antique dating, but also for cancer treatment, time keeping, and the generation of random numbers. This isn't a one time measurement, either. 'Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.'"
Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, it sounds like our estimates of the Earth's age may be too young, not too old. Pending, of course, confirmation that the results aren't the result of an error in statistical analysis.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not just the Earth, but anything where radioactive decay is used as the basis for working out age. Things get even more troublesome if this effect is not uniform across radio isotopes.
To those who would reply in harshness... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Many *many* scientific advances have been made by deeply religious men and funded by a church. This is true historically and into our modern era. If you want a citation, use google.
2) Yes, there are religious people who do not understand science and say things that make us science folk cringe. That is not an excuse to bash religion or faith. That will not endear you to anyone or further scientific education. Remember there are also loony unscientific atheists, agnostics, as well as people of any other philosophical or religious persuasion. Pseudo-science is *not* the exclusive domain of the religious.
Do you want the general public to treat scientist and nerds the way some of you treat religious people? "Hey, a scientist sold me these brilliant pebbles [machinadynamica.com]. It turns out it's a crock - all scientist must be idiots! After all, this guy claiming to be a scientist is." We could all list countless failures by honest and dishonest men of science. Would you like the general public to lump you all together with ridicule and discard any science that has ever been touched or used by one of these men? They would throw out all of science! I am asking for you to be kind and understanding. It is possible to point out weaknesses in someone's theory without scorn and ridicule and without trying to trash their beliefs because of it. That will only alienate most people.
Defending an idea with bad science does not make the idea wrong - only the defense.
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think anyone really believes the earth is 6000 years old.
Just that Adam lived 6000 years ago.
Nope, there are plenty of people around who believe that the days referred to in Genesis are literal days, that Adam was around less than a week after the Earth itself, and that all of this happened six-millennia-and-change ago. They even have a shiny web site where they explain everything.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/age-of-the-earth [answersingenesis.org]
Don't underestimate these people. They're loons, but they're well-organized and numerous loons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have doubts about how numerous they are: being vocal and media savvy can make a group seem much larger than it is.
Also remember that they are largely restricted to the US and the Middle East.
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Informative)
Also remember that they are largely restricted to the US and the Middle East.
Bullpoopie. Such ideas have similar prevalence here in protestant parts of Western Europe. Evangelicals are just not as organized politically, and civilians don't have a way of influencing the curriculum of schools, so it's not a high profile issue.
In Catholic tradition, it's not as common to think of the bible as the literal word of God, so it's less of an issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Catholic tradition, it's not as common to think of the bible as the literal word of God, so it's less of an issue.
Catholics ALWAYS think of the bible as the Word of God. From the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' No. 81: "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
Getting back to the TFA however, it is possible that the radioactive decay rate is influenced by solar magnetic activity, just as it also seems possible that the solar magnetic fi
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Informative)
Anecdotal evidence can be deceptive, I was somewhat surprised to read about it too:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/313/5788/765/DC1/1 [sciencemag.org]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism [guardian.co.uk]
In another article, not available in English, the numbers were broken down by denomination. Catholics were less likely to take the bible literally, which brings the percentage of creationists down in Germany and the Netherlands, which are both about half catholic, half protestant/none/other
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that Saint Augustine (circa 400AD) argued against a literal Genesis, it's not really that surprising that a lot of Catholics don't believe in a literal Genesis. He's one of the foundations of the church. (Doctor of the Church? Whatever the term is.)
While it's always been a debate in Christianity, Biblical Literalism coming to the forefront is really quite a modern development.
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:4, Informative)
>>Jesus spoke about the literalness of the historical record of the Old Testament, and repeatedly throughout the Bible itself is the historicity of the creation account referred-to.
In the sense that God was the creator of the universe, sure. But the ancient Israelites had a very different conception of "history" than we do. Heroditus hadn't even been born when the early books of the Bible were written. Just as modern people have trouble dealing with the laws in the Old Testament sometimes, because they are structured differently from the more precise laws of today. So the debate is over if the account is a spiritual narrative or a historical narrative. Nachmanides and Maimonides both consider it spiritual narrative, and they often were at different ends of the spectrum from each other.
Various quotes -
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Matthew 19:4: ""Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'"
Or: "...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed." -Nachmanides, ~1250AD
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx [gallup.com]
while the title of the article focuses on Republicans, it goes on to discuss Americans in general. Fully 66% of the country holds to some form of a young creationist perspective for humanity (strangely combined with a more even distribution of views on evolution and an old planet/universe. If anything, by these numbers, which appear to hold up in other surveys, the evolutionary system appears to be the vocal minority's position. Within the survey, 38% held to a theistic evolution-esque model.
yeah but they are passionate (Score:3)
10 guys really really passionate about an idea, no matter how loony, can prevail over 1000 other guys who just don't care
you can't really laugh loony tunes wackjobs off. they are dangerous, because they work really really hard to disseminate their idiocies and make more wackjobs and influence our laws
unfortunately, in this world, proving something to be true scientifically is not enough. your job doesn't end with a scientific proof, it only just begins there. you also have to prevail it upon the world as th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Just to pre-empt it... (Score:2)
I don't think anyone really believes the earth is 6000 years old.
Just that Adam lived 6000 years ago.
I was raised in a church where most would have me believe that *nothing* existed a week before Adam was molded.
But those with a heretical bent did go for the day-age interpretation of Genesis I, to reduce at least some of the glaring conflicts with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be even correct that Adam lived 6000 years ago.
If so, he lived happily some 2000 years _after_ some other people (many of them) had already started cultivating wheat, weaving textiles and manufacturing ceramics, such as in Mesopotamia.
How should he have known, in his idyllic garden, with so many trees to pluck fruit from (except "that" infamous one, of course)?
Maybe "Adam" is just another word for "A not-so-talented guy of ancient times".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is some genetic evidence to suggest that at one point, we're all descended from a group of about 40 individuals in Africa, mostly from mitochondrial DNA... my guess is that this is way way before 6000 years ago, though... according to eastern legend/history, the Japanese language is about 10,000 years old, and the Chinese culture goes back about as far.
Not that I'm a creationist or anything, but I think the problem with their 6000 year interpretation is that the oral tradition tends to lose sense of t
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Admiral.... If we go by the book, like, days would seem like hours.
Re: Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like, as is proven by history, at least a couple of million Chinese and Egyptians.
Genesis literalists like to "show" that if you started with eight people around the assumed time of the flood, it takes only a modest exponential growth rate to get the world's current population. Too bad they don't pause to consider what their curve predicts for just a few hundred years beyond the starting point.
And therein lies, I think, the big cognitive difference between scientists and traditionalists. Scientists are all over their own hypotheses with "what about this?" questions, but a traditionalist doesn't look beyond the most superficial analysis if it gives the desired result.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming Noah & Mrs Noah were both a bit past it, that means everyone is a descendant of his three sons; the third generation is produced by "begetting" with [at the very least] cousins.
So humanity is descended from a bunch of Foresters/Tasmanians/West Virginians. Actually, when you think about it, that explai
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Insightful)
but what it *does* do is call into question the very premise that those methods are based on ... It seems that the more we study the more we find out that these things humanity has been 'sure of' at points in history are just plain wrong: the earth isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the solar system, and maybe the earth isn't billions of years old
TFA doesn't say how much the observed decay rates might be changing, but I really, really doubt that it's enough to make a difference to our large-scale picture of how old things are (Earth, billions of years; multicellular life, hundreds of millions of years, etc.) If the rates were that variable, we would have seen other signs of it before now. Things might turn out to be a little younger or older than we thought, but Really Old is still going to be Really Old.
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely, our current measured rates are accurate averages, but this will widen the margin of error. So instead of "five million years old, plus or minus ten thousand years" you might get "five million years old, plus or minus a hundred thousand years".
Onions. On belts. (Score:5, Funny)
Overheard in a museum:
Boy: Mister, how old is that dinosaur skeleton?
Curator: [after some mumbling and finger counting] 60 million and four years, eight months and sixteen days.
Boy's mother: How can you know so accurately?
Curator: Well, in the training course they told me it was 60 million years old. That was when I joined, which would be back in January 2006...
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm [tufts.edu]
Re: Just to pre-empt it... (Score:5, Insightful)
but what it *does* do is call into question the very premise that those methods are based on.
Right. It's altogether conceivable that trees grew a dozens of rings per year until just before we started looking!
It seems that the more we study the more we find out that these things humanity has been 'sure of' at points in history are just plain wrong: the earth isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the solar system, and maybe the earth isn't billions of years old...
The only reliable trend is that every time we find out something is wrong, the universe proves to be even more unlike sacred texts portray it.
Not entirely... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's fair to distinguish between historical claims regarding the periods in which the Bible was written (or the accounts it was based on were from), and claims about physics, geology, and other natural sciences (which, imo, the Bible actually makes very few if any claims about anyway).
I think it's unsurprising that the Bible would have accurately named a contemporaneous ruler, yet not so accurately give the age of the planet earth.
Re:Just to pre-empt it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Only scientific proof is scientific proof.
Uh, no. There is no such thing as “scientific proof”. There is scientific evidence, which can be very convincing, but nothing is ever certain. There are logical and mathematical proofs, but those are different things.
Oh no (Score:2)
Lets hope nobody identifies Plutonium-186 [wikipedia.org]
decay rates based on season? (Score:2)
or proximity to the sun? could the amount of ambient energy have an effect on decay rates? Ice melts faster in the summer than in winter, or does it? observed decay is relative to an average state.... balanced equations and all that stuff I tried to forget from school come back....
Re:decay rates based on season? (Score:5, Informative)
The sun has a cycle of it's own (about 1 month). They did a much more accurate study and found the decay rate is tightly correlated to the sun's cycle.
Longer version:
The theory now is that it has to do with the neutrino flux. As we move further from the sun the flux goes down by 1/R^2. We saw that fluctuation first. But the neutrino flux also varies with the solar cycle which is independent of the earth's temperature.
This is very very cool experimental physics. Kudo's to them!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's another possible simple test: use the southern hemisphere. If it goes down in winter in the southern hemisphere at the same time as going up in the northern, that's a whole different data point.
Re:decay rates based on season? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:decay rates based on season? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that's exactly why darkmeleon suggested doing the experiment in the southern hemisphere: it's a great way to either prove or disprove those saying that temperature variation is what's causing the change in measured decay rates: if it's caused by the weather's effect on the equipment, then the effect should be out of phase in the southern hemisphere than the northern. If, on the other hand, the increase/decrease happens in the same months, then it confirms that it's the proximity to the sun that's causing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... use a termostat in the lab?
No confirmation from Cassini (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Cassini also has the advantage of little if any other material around it to have an adverse effect on measurement, measured decay could be affected by surroundings.
I'm not even certain how you would go about having a closed system to measure, you can know a speed or a location but.....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cassini also has the advantage of little if any other material around it to have an adverse effect on measurement, measured decay could be affected by surroundings.
Even more than this.
What is the precision one can trust for Cassini's measurements? How small is the seasonal variation in Earth conditions? How the two compares?
Re:No confirmation from Cassini (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No confirmation from Cassini (Score:5, Insightful)
What valid conclusion can one derive from the above facts? In my opinion, exactly one, which is more research is necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's a conclusion you can take to the bank (after the grant comes in, of course).
Re:No confirmation from Cassini (Score:4, Insightful)
Two interesting points are missing (maybe I should go and read TFA).
1) The actual variation measured in decay of Si-32 and Ra-226. How small is small? Second, third, fourth significant digit? Even smaller maybe?
2) The experimental precision of the Pu-238 experiment.
The precision of 2) should be at least an order of magnitude better than the precision of 1) to be able to reasonably rule out solar effects in case of 2). Considering experiment 2) is done on board a space craft and 1) is done on earth, I don't expect this to be the case.
Re:No confirmation from Cassini (Score:5, Insightful)
Both are important.
If you can measure three significant digits, and your effect is in the fifth, then you do not see it. However a more precise measuring apparatus may measure up to six significant digits, and there the effect may become visible.
Only when the effect becomes visible you can start saying anything about statistical significance.
For example, I'm measuring the distance between two points. This distance is say 850 meters, and with my yardstick I can measure accurate to the meter. I do this every week for ten years and will not realise there is a fault line in between these points and they are moving apart.
However someone else is doing the exact same measurement with laser equipment that measures to the tenth of a millimetre. He will notice that we start off at 849.8452 meters, and that ten years later it has slowly increased to 849.8473 meters.
The first measurement reaching three significant digits does not see any effect, and quite rightfully says the distance has not changed. It indeed barely has. The second measurement that reaches seven significant digits however does see an effect. The sixth and seventh digit slowly but surely increase over the years.
So here you see why the number of significant digits, the precision of your measurements does have an effect to whether you can see an effect or not. If your measurement is not precise enough then the effect (the slow movement of the earth's crust) disappears in the noise.
And to come back on my previous comment: this is why the measurements on both the spacecraft (no effect) and on earth (have effect) can both be correct, and do not necessarily contradict. As half life has long been considered a constant for a certain isotope I'm sure this effect is really really small. It was pretty hard to see, and it appears only noticeable when you really start looking for it. Otherwise you will miss it. This effect seems to be on the edge of our current capabilities, and small enough to be dismissed as noise by most researchers.
Re:No confirmation from Cassini (Score:5, Informative)
If you can measure three significant digits, and your effect is in the fifth, then you do not see it. However a more precise measuring apparatus may measure up to six significant digits, and there the effect may become visible.
Only when the effect becomes visible you can start saying anything about statistical significance
This is not true. By collecting many replicates a distribution can be modelled with an estimated mean possessing an accuracy greater than the possible measurement precision of an individual replicate.
Let's say you have two distributions - one centered at 4.1 and one at 4.4. Standard deviation of both distributions is 1. Your measuring equipment only has an integer resolution. About 95% of samples will have a value that is +/-2 of the true mean. So you will end up with many samples of values, predominantly ...2,3,4,5,6,7... By analysing the distribution of these samples you can derive confidence intervals for the sample mean, and as the number of samples is increased, the mean estimates will converge to 4.1 and 4.4, and the confidence of these estimates will increase. Even though you do not have sub-integer resolution, by analysing the distribution of integer samples, you can deduce that your samples have in fact been taken from two independent underlying populations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
more expensive, publicly funded research is necessary.
Of course is necessary!!!
Do you want another Three Miles Island to happen because of seasonal variations in radioactive decay rate takes us by surprise? Wouldn't you want to see some safe nuclear fuel, impervious to sun's flares, being developed? Is it not enough we have to deal with global warming?
(warning: the above post is intended humorous only, under no circumstances the words below represent the author's opinions on real issues! In plain word: c'mon, mods, it is a joke!)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you can also conclude that some isotopes decay rates are affected by some external factors i.e. that decay rate is not a fixed constant for all materials.
This is an earthshattering discovery stop being so boring about it.
Ah, yes. Like we didn't know it already that some thermal neutrons thrown at U235 will cause a faster decay. An, indeed, quite earth-shattering if you allow the reaction go super-critical. Except that I wouldn't call this discovery as something very new; would you?
So, I think my conclusion still stands: more research is necessary to discover what causes the variation of decay rate in this particular case. And, as any research, it can be boring for some, exciting for others.
Re:No confirmation from Cassini (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that Cassini isn't measuring the decay rate, as the other experiments were directly, but measuring the power output from thermocouples heated by the energy of the particles captured (by the overall mass of the thermocouple/isotope system) from the decaying material -- which also has a rather long half-life.
There's a lot of averaging out of effects in all that, and the effect they're looking for is quite small. The link didn't mention a lower bound for the detection sensitivity based on looking at Cassini power outputs. Cassini doesn't rule it out, it just sets an upper bound for the effect -- and if the effect were that strong we'd likely have noticed it before now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The link didn't mention a lower bound for the detection sensitivity based on looking at Cassini power outputs.
The arxiv.org link at the bottom of the article provides just that. The variation in counting (not decay) rates observed is about 0.1% over the 3% variation in Earth's orbital distance, implying about (3E-2)/R**2 as the relationship, and the Cassini results put an upper limit on of less than (0.84E-4)/R**2 and comparable for a /R term.
Ergo, the Cassini results put on a limit that is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than the original observation. Ergo, the original observation is not due to simply
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
really nice find - that wrecks their thesis at the bottom.
Huh? Why?
Assuming the explanation is "Seasonal variation in neutrino flux", because 2 radioactive elements (silicon-32 and radium-) seems to show a neutrino capture cross-section higher than another one (Pu238)? Would this be so unusual?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What if the seasonal variation is caused by particles that require the mass of the earth to slow them down sufficiently to interact with the radioactive material?
Interesting idea, like a moderator. We would expect variations to occur with latitude (and season), revolution of the earth, and perhaps the rare lunar eclipse. Problem with this explanation is, I have a hard time imagining the 24-hour cycle signal would get missed.
Outstanding example of "Little Science" (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the really cool parts of this finding -- in modern times, experimental particle physics has required increasingly huge machines (and budgets) to participate. For a change, here's researchers everywhere can participate in, possibly revolutionary, and for very little cost.
Electro-Weak force (Score:3, Interesting)
Strong Magnetic Fields and High temperatures can influence the Weak Nuclear force, causing it to change.
We have already coupled the forces of ElectroMagnetism and the Weak force in particle accelerators, why is this of any surprise?
More info (Score:3, Informative)
There was also some "fringe" claims back in the early 1990's about how high voltage electrical fields affect alpha decay in isotopes. A quick search turned up a patent [freepatentsonline.com].
If these claims are substantiated its going to hit more fields than we expect. IIRCC current theory's relating to atomic decay, both classic and quantum, state that the decay rate of unstable atoms is totally random and does not change under any normal conditions. This finding would seem to dispute that, even raising the possibility of accelerating the decay of radioactive atoms into stable one. Might be a way of dealing with the nuclear waste issues if its true and we can figure out how to induce it in the lab. Who knows, once we understand it we might be able to make the effect go the other way and create useful isotopes without needing a reactor.
No mater the case this is interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing more research on this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRCC current theory's relating to atomic decay, both classic and quantum, state that the decay rate of unstable atoms is totally random and does not change under any normal conditions.
Not quite, k-electron capture are affected by the cross section of the k-electrons with the nucleus, which might be slightly changed by pressure or chemical bonds. This can lead to a change of up to 1%. The fully ionised nucleus would be stable if there is no other decays possible.
Other decay modes should also be affected, as the energy levels of the nucleus is pertubed by the electron-density, but this would be a much smaller effect, as the electron cloud is not directly involved in these decays.
Radioactive decay (Score:2)
But is that true? I thought a more correct statement would be that Cesium-137 decays at a particular rate on average. I'd have thought you'd expect some minor fluctuations in decay rates would be expected.
Keeping time? (Score:2)
This is important because the rate of decay is very important not just for antique dating, but also for cancer treatment, time keeping, and the generation of random numbers.
How is radioactive decay used for time keeping?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You use this site and have never heard of an atomic clock?
Re: (Score:2)
Atomic clocks don't use radioactive decay.
Doesn't use radioactive decay (Score:3, Informative)
Quote from the article "The principle of operation of an atomic clock is not based on nuclear physics, but rather on the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels."
Re: (Score:2)
The principle of operation of an atomic clock is not based on nuclear physics, but rather on the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels.
You didn't even read the link you copied. Does this mean you are stupid? It just might.
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
the smell test (Score:2)
Methinks we've got another outbreak of N-Rays or CNF in the works.
Just a hunch...
You mean... (Score:2)
You mean the glitch in my PC is really POM dependent?
Question (Score:2)
But if it's neutrino's doing this, *and* there's a notable difference to what happens to these experiments, depending on what side of the globe you're on, then the amount and the effect of neutrino's racing through earth, us, and whatnot cannot be in any way insignificant, meaning that they must, somehow, interact with us. You know. Give us cancer and that sort of thing. Make us more heavy, I don't know. Or do neutrino's *only* affect isotope-degradation-experiments ?
Re:Question (Score:4, Interesting)
The trouble is that the effect is correlated with the 33-day rotation of the solar core. If varying rates of nuclear decay affected cancer rates -- which they could -- the problem with measuring it is the speed with which cancer progresses. Since we can't detect cancer the moment a cell goes rogue, any variability in oncogenesis rates over a 33-day period would be lost in the statistical noise.
If you do figure out a way to detect oncogenesis that precisely, you'll be too busy curing cancer to worry much about solar neutrino flux.
Synchronized (Score:2)
Is it possible that the decay changes and the solar activity just happen on the same schedule due to some other external force that synchronizes them, or due to some sort of inherent cyclicality that began at a similar instant in the distant past and remains synchronized?
Other than human error I can't think of any other alternate explanations for the correlation.
Re: (Score:2)
As to you not being able to come up with any alternate explanations, I think Shakespeare had it right in Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than
Artifact? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Random Number Generation (Score:2)
Ever since I heard radioactive decay mentioned as a true random process, I have wondered how long it would take until we figured out that it wasn't true random, after all. This story sounds like we may be getting closer.
Neutrinos involved in beta decay (Score:3, Interesting)
Beta decay is: neutron -> proton + electron + antineutrino.
If you add a neutrino to each side you get: neutron + neutrino -> proton + electron + energy
So is it not plausible that the probability of a nucleus undergoing beta decay is related to the number of neutrinos handy?
A couple of other corollaries: this finding would mean that carbon-14 dating is less reliable than previously thought; and also that it may be possible somehow to extract historical data about the strength of the sun somehow. (relevant to the AGW debate).
Science is like an unreliable employee (Score:3, Insightful)
Cause and effect (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA seems to assume "seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun" and "something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth" ... e.g. that it is the sun affecting the isotopes. Why not the other way around? I'm sure there are some of these isotopes inside the sun. So if their decay rates change, won't that have an effect on the sun?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another possibility would be that some other influence is affecting both the decay rates and the solar activity. If I had to make a poorly informed guess, I would pick that over the idea of the sun influencing the decay rates.
Assuming this decay rate thing is real, and not some subtle misunderstanding about the measuring technique, am I the only one who thinks this is a fantastic result?
Decades Old News (Score:3, Informative)
If we went clear back to 1965 you could attend college classes in astronomy that included the teaching that the sun could not produce as much energy as it does with nuclear reactions without having too short a life span. The calculations of that era suggested that gravity was the most likely source of solar heat generation.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
and here I thought C : Enter was a DOS thing.
Silly poster, tricks are for hookers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its a bit like correlating car crashes with the movement of galaxies. Atoms are tough little beasts and not really affected by anything other than other particles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Other particles are sufficiently high energy to change the internal workings of atoms.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Its a bit like correlating car crashes with the movement of galaxies.
AHA!! I just knew astrology had merit!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, temperature no.
Things like radioactive decay... are affected by things like high energy impacts, or variations in the cosmological constants of the universe. Perhaps a rise in and fall in the base energy of the zero point field? I'm not sure neutrinos would be energetic enough to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Or neutrino flux changes the way decay rates are measured.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe humans just remember negatives better than positives.
They bitch and moan enough anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
... they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation.
Chances are it's just seasonal effects on the testing equipment, with varying temperatures and humidity levels.
Maybe the cleaning lady dusts the lab more in with winter because there is less gardening to do, so there is less background radiation, and the instruments are calibrated once a month on a test target plus background.
Re:Earth Date (Score:4, Informative)
Except that closer analysis of the Si-32 data from Brookhaven also showed a 33-day cycle correlating to the rotation of the Sun's core.
Re:Earth Date (Score:5, Interesting)
They found the same results in historical data of various labs. That of course does not rule out such a mundane reason, it makes it less likely.
I agree that there are certainly seasonal variations in labs, even if you try to keep it as constant as possible. But for starters the air in the lab has to be refreshed all the time, and this air comes from the outside. I can imagine the composition changes between summer and winter (plants don't grow in winter).
The 33-day cycle another replier mentioned is interesting of course, as it correlates with a solar cycle and no normal human cycles.
A multi-year cycle correlating to solar spots could be interesting.
Effects correlating to known solar flares too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did anyone actually predict this *before* this effect was measured?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What you are discussing is one of many so called proxies. Don't know what "proxy" means in that connotation, as a thermometer meets that definition. It too is a proxy for measuring temperature. Why not just say thermometers?
Anyway.
Radioisotopes are one means of estimating temperature. There are others. Some more robust than others. In the area of skeptical science, versus unskeptical s
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it can. Or rather, I'm sure the usual suspects can come up with some explanation of why this proves everything we know is wrong. You'll probably believe in it, too.
No, we haven't. There's a crank weatherman/british MP who claims everything is related to sunspots, but even if you believe it, it's nothing new.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that GR has been subjected to one experimental test after another for over 90 years now and passed them all?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the idea that "Time" does not exist, I am inclined to look with interest at anything which affects the observed weirdness of time. If only atomic clocks have been used to measure time distortion due to differences in relative motion, then the two things might be related.
I don't know about General Relativity being a baseless cult, though. While it is still called a theory, it has proven a particularly useful one which is essential for calculating the correct deployment and use of satellites. -
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Decay ... rates? What's a decay rate if time doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it were dogma, physicists wouldn't be the ones challenging it. You don't see many Catholics disputing the existence of God. That's dogma.
Re:dogma (Score:4, Funny)
"This is how I was taught 30 years ago and it's how I'm teaching you now." - My physics teacher, in an angry voice when I mentioned quantum mechanics during class.
Re:dogma (Score:4, Insightful)
"This is how I was taught 30 years ago and it's how I'm teaching you now." - My physics teacher, in an angry voice when I mentioned quantum mechanics during class.
Wow. Was he wearing robes and a silly? Were people kissing his ring?
-FL