Radioactive Decay Apparently Influenced By the Sun 267
quax writes "In school you probably learned that the decay rate of radioactive matter is solely determined by the halftime specific to the element. There is no environmental factor that can somehow tweak this process. At least there shouldn't be. Now a second study confirmed previous findings that the decay rate of some elements seems to be under the subtle and mysterious influence of the sun. As of now there is no theoretical explanation for this strange effect buried in the decay rate data."
Repost of (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/1839202/advance-warning-system-for-solar-flares-hinges-on-surprising-hypothesis [slashdot.org]
Re:Repost of (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a repost. That story was about predicting solar flares based on the hypothesis presented here.
They were posted out of order, certainly, and this one is about 2 weeks too late, and offers no value over the previous story.
But this is a better article about the underlying experiments, even though the website waited until today to push it out. Slow news day at WaveWatching.net? Or is this just pimping an old story for blog views?
It's worse than a dupe, and you calling it a repost does not properly insult the report.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they were posted in the correct order but then the sun messed up space-time so that they arrived out of order.
Re: (Score:2)
Ups, wan't aware of thtat when I submitted this. At least there is some additional info in this article i.e. the more detailed graphs from the research and the video. Although not the most captivating speaker the presentation adds interesting details to extend that they think they see patterns specific to the core of the sun.
If this pans out it could actually open up the possibility of neutrino telescopy. That'll be extremely exciting.
Re:Repost of (Score:5, Informative)
It's not exactly the same, but it is the same kookery warmed over. Here's a summary.
Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?
There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.
Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.
He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al. [Ding 2009]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008]. Despite this, Jenkins and Fischbach continue to speculate about a neutrino effect in [Sturrock 2012]; refusal to deal with contrary evidence is a hallmark of kook science. They admit that variations shown in their 2012 work "may be due in part to environmental influences," but don't seem to want to acknowledge that if the strength of these influences in unknown, they may explain the entire claimed effect, not just part of it.
Jenkins and Fischbach made further claims in 2010 based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.
Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.
In agreement with theory, high-precision experimental tests show no detectable temperature-dependence in the rates of electron capture[Goodwin 2009] and alpha decay.[Gurevich 2008]
He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1 [arxiv.org], Astropart.Phys.32:42-46,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156 [arxiv.org], Astropart.Phys.31:407-411,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318 [arxiv.org]
This is exciting (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly the most exciting physics news of the year. Although the detection of the Higgs boson was big, it mostly confirmed what existing theory predicted. Interesting, important - but, to some physics, perhaps a bit boring.
If further measurements continue to verify this effect, there are some very interesting new physics to discover.
Re: (Score:2)
but, to some physics, perhaps a bit boring.
Err, make that, "but, to some *physicists", perhaps a bit boring."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is exciting (Score:5, Informative)
This argument about solar influence on nuclear decay rates has been going on for a few years now. The experimental issues are hard to interpret, because you have to be able to rule out external influences on your counting apparatus. It is extremely hard when the period of your signal matches the orbit of the Earth, which aliases all sorts periodic behavior that has nothing to do with new physics. There are seasonal variations in temperature, cosmic rays, the voltage delivered by the power company, foot traffic near your lab, etc, etc. Verifying that none of these things can possibly influence your results is what takes all the time.
A semi-random selection of earlier papers on the subject:
"Experimental investigation of changes in beta-decay count rate of radioactive elements" (1999):
Claiming 24 hour and 27 day periodicities in the decay rates of cobalt-60 and cesium-137
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9907008v1.pdf [arxiv.org]
"Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates" (2010):
Reports of an annual periodicity in the decay rates of chlorine-36, silicon-32, manganese-56, and radium-226.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924 [arxiv.org]
"Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates: Constraints from the MESSENGER Mission" (2011)
A study of cesium-137 decay rates on a spacecraft going to Mercury show no change as the spacecraft travelled closer to the Sun.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074 [arxiv.org]
"Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant" (2012)
Cesium-137 decays in a detector underground (shielding it from most cosmic rays) show no significant periodicity, with limits much lower than claimed signals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662 [arxiv.org]
"Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline" (2012)
Studies of strontium-90 decays show a variety of periodic variations, ranging from 0.26 per year to 3.96 per year.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3107 [arxiv.org]
This list goes on and on. There is hardly any consensus on the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
We learned that decay rates were random, but with a certain statistical mean.
Often in science 'random' is a word for 'we don't know yet how'. Finding out how is really the fun part. Now that there is some sort of link to solar radiation and decay rates, we can be closer to seeing how decay rates might not be so random but even predictable.
Re:This is exciting (Score:5, Informative)
I think the problem is that the link is not yet established. What we have is a link between count rates in a detector observing a sample of some isotope and time of year, which no one disputes (we reasonably assume they are not making up their data). The argument is whether you can make the inductive leap to the claim that radioactive decay rates depend on the amount of solar radiation. As shown in some of those papers above, other experiments don't (like the test with the MESSENGER probe) show the effect you would expect if solar radiation were the cause.
Even if we do find there is an external influence on decay rates (which would be pretty nifty), that definitely does not imply that the times of individual radioactive decays are predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem is that the link is not yet established. What we have is a link between count rates in a detector observing a sample of some isotope and time of year, which no one disputes (we reasonably assume they are not making up their data). The argument is whether you can make the inductive leap to the claim that radioactive decay rates depend on the amount of solar radiation. As shown in some of those papers above, other experiments don't (like the test with the MESSENGER probe) show the effect you would expect if solar radiation were the cause.
Apparently there are some other papers that cast doubt on the basic finding. See the comment by "AK" at http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/ [wavewatching.net]
That comment also points out that this "second study" includes one of the authors of the first study, so it's not really an independent confirmation.
And the first plot at that link (the original study) doesn't - IMO - actually look very supportive: the average period is about right, but the phase isn't very s
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me there is enough accumulated oddity to follow up with some space based measurements in order to get a better signal to noise ration and eliminate some possible systematic error sources.
Re:This is exciting (Score:5, Insightful)
Another relatively easy control would be to conduct simultaneous experiments in the northern and southern hemispheres. Many external effects (like temperature) would be 180 degrees out of phase, while the distance from the Sun will be essentially the same for the two experiments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the one where they found a seasonal variation just like this one, but it disappeared when they looked at the ratio of counts for two different elements. The rest of the paper is an analysis of the seasonal variations of their detectors.
I don't have the reference with me, but someone else will probably post it. These guys have notably NOT done the simple experiment of monitoring both Cl and one of the elements they insist don't respond.
Claim not new (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Claim not new (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. There were also come claims with Cl-36, but multiple measurements have the effect in opposite directions and different magnitudes (http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357 [arxiv.org], so they seem more likely to be due to instrumentation effects than real differences
This is one of those "extraordinary evidence" things, and we aren't there yet. Annual variation is always suspect because experimental conditions can change subtly with the weather.
Re:Claim not new (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, this is a different data series so I still think it's fair to say that the second study confirms the original finding, although further completely independent confirmation is highly desirable.
Also noteworthy: This apparently only affects beta decay i.e. it seem to hint at an unknown reaction involving the weak force only.
The video goes into some more detail, revealing that they found periodicities that are typical for the core of the sun, only neutrino interaction could account for that.
Not really surprising... (Score:2)
makes sense, there's probably something from the sun that interacts with a nucleus inducing a slightly higher rate of decay.
If you think about what a particle accelerator is, we basically fling particles at other particles and induce a (in many cases artificial or otherwise bizarre) form of radioactive decay. If you figure every particle has some interaction cross section with gamma rays from the sun you will then have an observable effect as the sun cycles. You can probably produce the same effect with a
Re: (Score:2)
It may make some logical sense, but this is a mechanism that has not been previously observed and largely discounted as insignificant by experimenters in the past.
The one thing that is known to be coming from the Sun that pretty much can't be isolated from other items (by going deep underground and trying to rule out other environmental factors) would be neutrinos and neutrino flux. This was mentioned above, but there are some interesting implications if that has some significant impact.
Neutrinos are usual
Re: (Score:2)
but this is a mechanism that has not been previously observed and largely discounted as insignificant by experimenters in the past.
Well, except that if it is what I think it is, it has been observed experimentally even in nuclear physics, it's how you can use lasers for Uranium enrichment, and the effect is definitely there in electron structures. Granted, me being wrong would pose some really interesting science, and sticking numbers to it properly is a lot harder than typing a few sentences on /..
And the effect is insignificant, so that makes sense. Relativity still applies to an object moving 1m/h but it's not all that important.
Re: (Score:2)
Any sort of EM radiation or neutrino's would be the obvious choice. We know neutrino cross sections pretty well *I think*, I was an 'atomic' (as in electrons) rather than 'nuclear' (as in protons and neutrons) physicist so I I'm not 100% sure on that, and could probably account for neutrino's already - but maybe not.
Gravity from the sun is unlikely to be noticeably cyclical this far away. (Any gravity changes from moving mass on the sun would be apparent locally of course, but I don't think the total mas
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
You mean what if the current nuclear decay dating methods are found to be invalid? They aren't, you can actually see from the first graph they plot, the cycle is minuscule in magnitude. Carbon 14 has a half life of something like 5730 +/- 40 years by the old measurements (see wikipedia). This make it more like (and I haven't done the math so I'm being illustrative rather than exact her) 5750 +/- 10 on a 10 year cycle +/- 5 randomness.
This is where interesting physics happens. You had a number (5730
Re: (Score:2)
Not even necessarily a high cross section, there *is* a cross section after all, this is just a really really really tiny magnitude effect.
Mars? (Score:3)
Neutrinos? (Score:5, Interesting)
If neutrinos are the suspects, wouldn't it be easy to measure the decay rates of one of those nuclei in a strong neutrino flux, close to a large nuclear reactor or in a neutrino beam from an accelerator?
Re:Neutrinos? (Score:5, Informative)
This would be a good follow up. But producing a high flux of neutrinos is not trivial especially the right kind. The current thinking is that there are three types of neutrinos and that the latter change via a process called neutrino oscillation on the way from sun to earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation [wikipedia.org]
Re:Neutrinos? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since you mention neutrinos, it is also worth noting that there was similar discussion (5 or so years ago) as to whether we can observe periodic variation in the number of neutrinos seen on Earth using various experiments. (Note that periodicities in neutrino rates are not what physicists call "neutrino oscillations". That's an entirely different effect.) Those papers claiming a periodicity included one of the authors on this study of radioactivity decay, and the analysis techniques were disputed by other papers as giving an unacceptably high rate of false positives. The experiments presented counter-analyses showing no significant signal once the probability of false positives was dealt with. (Disclaimer: I was tangentially involved in one of those papers.)
I haven't looked closely enough at the radioactive decay papers to see if the same issue has cropped up again here, but the neutrino periodicity argument is a good example of how these signals can fall apart under closer scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be great if you could take the time to scrutinize these papers. If this is simply due to erroneous data analysis this deserves to be shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought would be to launch a satellite. Farther away from the sun = less neutrinos.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, something very similar to this has been done:
Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071 [arxiv.org] , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 622 (2010) 93-96
It puts limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed by Jenkins and Fischbach in 2008. And yet Jenkins and Fischbach are still speculating that the effect they claim
M.I.A. (Score:2)
Looks real, but minor (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. The effect is well under 1%, but above the noise threshold. Observed for radium (a beta emitter) but not europium (an alpha emitter), with the same experimental setup.
Although heat, pressure, and chemical binding have no measurable effect on radioactive decay, external particles hitting an atom certainly can affect radioactive decay. That's how chain reactions and particle accelerators work.
There's a suspicion here that solar neutrinos might be responsible. Beta decay involves the weak nuclear force, while alpha decay involves the strong nuclear force. Neutrinos are known to interact with the weak nuclear force.
The Fermilab accelerator, which can be used as a neutrino generator, was shut down and decommissioned in September 2011. That would have provided a way to test this hypothesis.
And in the end, fear was misplaced... (Score:2)
In the year 2013, the world learned it was wrong to fear Mother Earth. For all along, watching and judging humanity through the eyes of it's radioactive minions was
^^^
How it's relevent (Score:2)
For all we know about sub atomic particles and forces this was something not in the least predicted.
What if another reaction within the sun could cause massive decay all over the earth? Periods of mass extinction or mass mutation.
On the practical side it hints that decay rate can be controlled. Could be really important for subatomic particle researchers trying to produce and observe particles with ridiculously short life spans.
If the effect could be produced on demand within a localized area for long perio
Re: (Score:2)
Current neutrino observatories are very difficult to build.
E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory [wikipedia.org]
This probably could give neutrino observatories quite a boost.
Wouldn't it make sense? (Score:2)
It's an artefact of the detector .. (Score:2)
Particle physics (Score:3)
If this is truly confirmed, then the obvious next step is to determine what particles being emitted by the sun are causing this effect. Is it a neutrino thing? Neutrinos aren't affected by the magnetosphere at all, IIRC. Once we know the particle(s) involved, there might be some useful tech emerge from it; perhaps it could be used to build a new generation of fission reactors where this effect can be used to enhance control or safety? I dunno... it's not my field at all but that seems obvious enough.
Relativity effects due to gravity? (Score:2)
If we're moving closer or farther from the Sun, shouldn't the differences in gravity make time flow at different speeds?
Suggestions: (Score:2)
From most to least plausible order:
Random accidental correlation that cannot be repeated in independent experiments
Detector noise caused by Sun.
Solar neutrinos catalyze decay.
Undiscovered particles (dark matter) interaction catalyzes decay.
Gravity affects decay rates differently than relativity predicts.
Gravity affects clocks differently than relativity predicts.
Sloppy work (Score:2)
It is hard to see how anything having to do with neutrinos could be effected by whatever local noon is in a lab in Isreal. Look at the time of day correlations.. If I did this in a lab in the US should I expect the same time of day results? If so how would such results square with the earth being transparent to neutrinos? Would this not be evidence against neutrinos as a cause?
Separatly it is hard to see how the paper gets away with voltage and temperature measurements which correlate so closely with th
bad experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: i am an experimental physicist from another field (with experience in precision measurements).
looking at the arxiv preprint:
Why would one allow a +-3% variation in *absolute* temperature (figure 6). 6% of 300K are 18K (this is huge. My experiment needed to be recalibrated when the temperature changed by 1 degree). This explains also the *huge* fluctuation of the biasing voltage "lead accumulator" completely propotional to the temperature. which brings me to the next point: the paper makes is sound like this voltage was used *without further stabilization* for biasing the electronics. Why any sane experimentalist would accept such fluctuations when cheap and reliable means (controlled heater, 50cent voltage controller) is beyond my comprehension.
That being said, we talk about some difference on the order of 500 counts (per day, see the paper and multiply the numbers...), respectively 25 per hour or 1 per 2 minutes. I am no expert on it, but at such low count rates an exclusion of the influence of cosmic rays would be needed. Sasly the paper also does not show any dark count rate experiment. If they let the same detector run without anything inside and show the data, then we could make some conclusions.
Ideally they shoud have run an identical detector without a sample in close vincinity at the same time and correlate the fluctuations.
neutrinos (Score:3)
Nuclear disintegration is the weak interaction at work.
The weak interaction involves neutrinos.
The sun emits a lot of neutrinos.
Of course, it is not that simple, and physicists still have to churn out a theory. But the idea that the sun can influence nuclear disintegration does not looks odd to me
Re:Cue the young earth creationists (Score:5, Funny)
Where are we going with this?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This talk is foolishness. There's plenty of difference between them and me. Can you cite any data that creationists give that does not come from a book that they wrote? I have not ignored millions of years of geological record and, well, proper research to come to my conclusions as they've done.
The thing is, and in saying this I'm not saying its right or wrong, the point of dispute is whether the geological record does indeed represent millions of years. So asking them to not ignore 'so-called' millions of years of geological record is not going to get you anywhere at all.
Personally, I don't like things like red shift nor carbon 14 dating as giving scientific evidence by themselves unless they can be corroborated by other evidence. For example, there are formations of galaxies and other objects wh
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a young-earth creationist, but you should read more carefully.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
God said "Let there be light" on the first day (after having created the heavens and the earth), but since the point of view of that verse is from the Earth's surface ("and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters"), that could just mean that "Let there be light" is just the first time sunlight has been able to reach the surface of the Earth, not necessarily that it was the creation of the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but I'll try to explain what I meant.
If the early earth had an atmosphere that was dense with ash or debris (from heavy volcanic activity and impacts with other objects), then it may have been so thick that sunlight could not reach the surface. When He said "Let there be light," it may have just been when the atmosphere cleared up and allowed light to reach the surface. Separating the day and the night just describes the rotation of the earth, but the fact that
Re: (Score:3)
Or it may have been absolutely none of that, and people are trying to infer stuff that shouldnt be inferred. The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account, and trying to turn it into one utterly misses the point ("there is a creator"; "work is good, but so is rest"; as well as setting the model of 6 periods of work and 1 of rest).
This is all as absurd as if I said "good day" to someone, and they inferred that I meant that nothing bad had happened on that day in any part of the world. Just ta
Re: (Score:2)
god had to see light to understand that it is good
Not really. You can see a Ferrari, and see that it is good, and still have had prior knowledge of it. I also think its a bit absurd to overliteralize it so that you infer from the word "see" that it was a visual phenomenon with photons and eyeballs with cones and rods connected to a brain.
Stop for a moment, remember who the audience was, put on your 7th grade reading hat, and then look at the text.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially when you're reading a translation of a translation of a translation.
Theres generally only one level of translation involved-- we have a remarkably good record of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Theres only the translation from hebrew to english in most bibles you will pick up (or greek to english for the NT).
Re: (Score:2)
Its entirely possible that the point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific treatise on the exact method, mechanics, and timing of the creation of all things.
Im just gonna throw this out there, and maybe Im wrong, but I dont think that would have been terribly relevant to a bunch of nomadic shepherds. I would also note that trying to turn the hebrew word "yom" into "day" before there was a sun or moon, or anything else we commonly use to define "day", seems to make very little sense to me-- especially w
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if someone, and I'm not saying it was aliens (although it was aliens), had explained how the Earth was actually created to people at that point, they probably would have just scratched their heads and written what was in Genesis anyway.
Which is not to say we are smarter than they were, but we have a lot more accumulated knowledge about the natural world and fewer misconceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
"Indeed, if someone, and I'm not saying it was aliens (although it was aliens), had explained how the Earth was actually created to people at that point, they probably would have just scratched their heads and written what was in Genesis anyway."
No, sir. Any intelligent mind has deep problems to blatanly contradict their own knowledge unless there's a concious effort to lie.
It is perfectly possible, even for the imperfect and limited mind of the human being, to rise a poetic description of the genesis of t
Re: (Score:2)
Not to start a gigantic flame war, but it has LONG been an argument that things we regard as "constants" may not in fact be constant. Its also been inferred that you have no easy way of proving that they are-- any such attempts will rely on more assumptions of constancy.
Such speculation(?) has generally been met with ridicule; now theres research to suggest that, in fact, those constants ARENT constant in the way we thought they were. And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?
Re: (Score:3)
And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?
There's nothing wrong with ridiculing those who start with their preferred answer and selectively ignore evidence to make it seem possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not everyone is ridiculing the idea, or else these people wouldn't be researching/publishing it.
IMO the safe bet is that this won't pan out (like the FTL neutrinos), but the interesting/fun bet us that it will (as would have been the case with FTL neutrinos).
I.e., Asimov's "That's funny..."
Re:Not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2) Find no logical arguments to shoot it down
Step 3) resort to ridicule and call it a day
Re:The logical argument to shoot it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
The hypothesis is that a yet unknown weak force interaction triggered be the sun's neutrino's is responsible for this.
It'll hardly be the first time that a scientifically observed phenomenon has no current theoretical explanation.
If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were the case then there wouldn't be a daily variation. Neutrinos don't care much about night.
Re: (Score:2)
Yearly variation, possibly correlated to sun earth distance, but the effect is very weak.
Re: (Score:2)
While neutrinos mostly just pass through earth, some limited shielding may occur and the added distance might make for a slightly different neutrino flavor mix.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the effect is not on the actual decay but on the detectors. Interesting but a lot more study is going to be need before an new interaction proven.
Re:The logical argument to shoot it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
> If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.
consider if you will where we place our neutrino detectors.
Re: (Score:2)
If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.
But Sir: Some of the measurements used in this study were taken deep under ground [arxiv.org]. Follow the first link in TFA.
Some of us do our best work from our basement bunkers, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3)
Over-hyping the current observations is likely to result in the public getting this message: "scientists are wrong, again".
Publicity is always a dangerous path between over-hyping things, and making sure there is enough information to maintain interest. Particularly since the sciences tend to rely on public funding. So it's perfectly reasonable for scientists to want to show what they are working on.
The problem is not when it doesn't work out, but when they actually cut corners and make themselves look incompetent. That is a one result of a rush to gain priority in the scientific community.
Re: (Score:2)
Or put differently, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Re:Not enough (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, because slashdot always only carries peer reviewed research from top notch Ivy League universities.
Oh wait a second ... these papers are actually peer-reviewed results from Ivy League research universities.
Re:Not enough (Score:4, Interesting)
They're also both papers from the same guy, contrary to what the article implies.
Re:Not enough (Score:4, Informative)
These are two different data series involving cooperation with different research partners. The article claims confirmation not independent confirmation.
Re: (Score:3)
So first it's faster than light neutrinos and now solar influence on radioactive decay.
Sorry but I don't need this on Slashdot. Fox News has all the trash science I'll ever need.
News cycle linked to neutrino cycle. Film at 10:45.
Re: (Score:3)
News cycle linked to FTL neutrino cycle. Film last night at 11.
Re: (Score:3)
If this is true, and there is actual causation and not only correlation (both these things are not clear to me at the moment), my first hypotheses would probably have to do with the quantum Zeno effect, rather than gravity. Although an explanation using gravity variations is also a valid hypotheses. But I agree that speculative hypes like this do not belong on /.
(disclaimer: PhD in physics, working in space-science)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it unfathomable that maybe slight variations in the gravitational force...
Yes, the gravitational force is 30+ orders of magnitude weaker than the force it is trying to overpower, the effect is comparable to a mosquito trying to tow the Moon away. Dark matter/energy are really only names for new and puzzling phenomena that we have recently observed, this could fall in the same category and is certainly worth deeper investigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Putting those two effects together, it is easy to imagine that some change in the make up of the sun as it evolves can also affect the nature of the gravity well around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Frame dragging and gravitational wave production can be straightforwardly calculated and are very small. These are pretty well understood effects of well tested theories so, no, I don't find it easy to imagine (how to get the desired effect).
I also don't see how any of this can evade the Messenger results, which should see a huge signal and doesn't.
Re:Oh. Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not worried. If this effect is based on solar neutrino flux or some such thing, what would that have to be to change radio carbon dating to give an earth age of 6000 years vs 4.5 billion? And then, what would the effect of the level of solar activity resulting in that neutrino flux do to life on earth? Probably fry it to a cinder.
If the effect exists, it is probably operating on the parts per million level. Which wouldn't do more than knock a few years off the age of Lucy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh. Oh no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the Sun is helping to pull the atoms apart via inflicted gravitational force on a very slight level.
Then please explain how solar tides affect the decay rate while much stronger lunar tides do not.
Re:Oh. Oh no. (Score:5, Funny)
The sun has brighter gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
The sun has brighter gravity.
That's silly.
The sun has stronger gravity because it perturbs the aether much more due to its heat and effulgence of yellow bile humors. Weren't you paying attention at all while you were learning the quadrivium?
Re:Oh. Oh no. (Score:5, Informative)
Every flux (including neutrino and gravity) is proportional to 1/R^2 because we live in 3D. If gravity affected radioactive decay we would've noticed that on our space RTGs. Neutrinos are the most likely answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that neutrinos don't care much about sunset.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that neutrinos don't care much about sunset.
Perhaps the Tau, Muon, and Electron neutrinos don't, but the Romantic neutrinos have always favored a striking sunset.
Re: (Score:2)
Every flux (including neutrino and gravity) is proportional to 1/R^2 because we live in 3D.
Speak for yourself... if you can. I put it to you that 4D or more is required for life to exist, it's the difference between a Photo (2D) and a Movie (3D). "Mr Hentes Anderson, what good is a reply button, if you could not Move Through Time to Press It?"
I get what you're saying though... Best not confuse the small minded with mathematics beyond their grasp.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. Anything that gives them an opportunity to attack science will be used. It doesn't matter if it makes sense.
Science is flexible. Theories change to adapt to new data. That's why it works and dogma out of a 250 year old Bible doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have just confirmed an effect, where there should be none, according to all of current science. Whether you like it or not, this is a crack in current science and there may be larger effects elsewhere.
That was my though too. Always exciting when it's a "hmmm... that's strange" moment rather than "yep. This confirms what we thought" moment. Unless it all turns out to be a poorly connected fibre optic cable ;)
Disclaimer: For the record, I'm not even remotely a creationist.
Creationism got a bad rap from all the nutjobs harping on about it happening exactly as a bible said. A truly awesome god would set the initial parameters of the universe to shape it the way he wants, without having to touch anything else since... to suggest anything else is blasphemy. I'm an athiest
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you certainly seem obsessed with it, alright.
Re: (Score:2)
Squeezing all the necessary radioactive decay into a short space of time would melt the planet and vaporize the oceans, even if you could modify the rate of radioactive decay by five or six orders of magnitude, which you probably cannot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People are stupid. Wizard's first rule. Think about what this means to 'carbon dating' material. What else does mankind yet to learn and ask yourself, "Does mankind know for a fact anything?"
Mankind knows for a fact that every time a new discovery is made, silly bints such as yourself will drastically overestimate the amount of science it overturns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False! When Chuck Norris heard of the radioactive waste storage problem he began to consume copious amounts of radioactive waste at each meal. The enviromental conditions in his mighty digestive tract were able to accelerate the decay of the radioactive material. The waste produced from Chuck Norris is no longer dangerously radioactive.
And lots of entropy misplaced?
Re: (Score:2)