Slashdot Mirror
The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Decay Rates
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.'"
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
What valid conclusion can one derive from the above facts? In my opinion, exactly one, which is more research is necessary.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
One that hath name thou can not otter
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.