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.'"
Linux is still for fags.
Does this change our dating of the earth? I heard somewhere that light was slowing down and thus our 4.5 Billion and 65 million year estimates on some issues is waaaaaay out.
No, this does not get you down to a 6000-year old Earth. Sorry.
Lets hope nobody identifies Plutonium-186
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Time moves faster in the winter.
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....
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
One way to double-check the seasonal variation effect is to look at the output level on radioisotope power sources in spacecraft. Cooper (2008) found no relationship between radioactive decay and distance to the sun.
You mean nobody ever thought of this before?!?!?!?!
Personally I would have thought that rates of radioactive decay would be affected by things like gravity and temperature. Perhaps I'm wrong?!
I wonder when the US will weaponize this into a neutrino gun that detonates Iranian nukes from the other side of the planet.
I wonder if this discovery can affect the climate change research. I mean, some paleo-climate stuff used in scientific papers use the amount and decay of certain isotopes to extrapolate the temperatures thousands years ago. We have just learnt that sunspot may be highly related with Earth climate (if in the next ten years the sun go nuts and start to show sunspot like a dalmatian and we saw the temperatures dropping, it could be the nail in the coffing of man-made global warming) and now an inpredictable solar flare can alter these measurements and provide us with false data.
Any expert around here that knows if this discovery can be "corrected" without a time machine?
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.
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?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
http://www.shellcity.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=26602&sid=9c46887527a49714e8b75b85e6ddbc27
scroll down to my post, "romrix" and you will see this;
Found another article from 2008 that postulates that the Earth/Sun distance may also have an effect on isotope decay rates.
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.
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.
This is really gross. Seriously. All the marijuana smoking pseudo physics guys on /. are going. "Woah".
This is a really big macro affect, that hadn't been discovered yet, and it effects out understanding of Radioactive decay and Neutrino (flux) action.
This is the kinda stuff that turns people into superheroes, and shit.
This simply doesn't happen every day.
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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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?
Methinks we've got another outbreak of N-Rays or CNF in the works.
Just a hunch...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You mean the glitch in my PC is really POM dependent?
I wonder if this happens with an atomic clock sent up into space? If so it would disprove the current belief that tests with atomic clocks in space has proven the theory of relativity.
I find this very intriguing because i do not believe you can bend spacetime. Only time will tell if im right.
HTTP/1.1 400
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 ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
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.
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."
It would be much better for them to say that the measured decay rate showed variation that could be correlated with the occurrence of solar flare activity. It could be something that affects actual decay rate, or something that affects the measurement of that decay rate. I don't think they have enough evidence to decide yet. It's certainly very interesting, though, and deserves additional research. A phenomenon that could actually result in changes to the decay rate of an isotope could lead to interesting new technology.
Solar flare, maybe, but seasonal? That sounds like an artifact.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Clearly the core needs more Mg54!
... Mn54. Sigh.
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...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Albert Einstein may be dancing/gloating in his grave. As I understand it he kind of predicted this.
This could have a profound impact on quantum physics.
Personally, I do not think this kills Quantum physics as a useful theory, but it should shake things up a bunch. People will have to look over the shoulders for a while.
Another possibility is that whatever is causing the variations in decay rates is also contributing to solar flares.
My guess is there are information effects that limit nuclear processes. If the sun flares that creates
such a complexity that the representational limit of this part of the universe dictactes other processes
creating complexity take a step back. Nucelar processes have no alternative (binary of existence of
non existence of particles) so you see the effect more clearly. The same effect that prevents CERN
from making black holes and that explains gravity..
As long as doctor and biologist in general are in the 38% minority. The cream of the cream would also be if teacher and person responsible for public policy belong to that minority. Then the sheeple can believe whatever crap they want, as they have been doing for thousands of years.
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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).
I always knew the sun was evil, thats why I cower in my basement beneath layers of tinfoil. Now I have to build myself a neutrino flux capacitor instrument to warm when the sun is about to spew mass ejection at me.
It's even worse than we thought !
Traditional physics dogma was that nothing affected decay rates. There is probably a lot of other dogma that eventually needs to fall.
Just about all evolutionists only believe evolution explains history. It's most trivial prediction, that every species (including humans) will exhaust any amount of resources*, so any society will eventually return to the kill or be killed resource wars. (you don't have to kill in these wars, but you have to commit actions that cause others to starve).
The only reason we're (currently) not doing that is the exponential rise in available resources, during which peace is possible. Given finite resources, this period must end (and quite frankly, oil is the reason we're not doing this right now). This evident consequence of evolutionary theory, properly adjusted for groups (small groups) ... is not believed by any evolutionists. I wonder what replaces it ?
* and obviously birth control or even any natural form of having less children lasts exactly until another group decides to have more, said group will take over in short order, no matter how small they are. If a 1% subgroup of society has 10% more children (and generally we're talking 200% or so), they will be a 99% majority in a mere about 20 generations.
So really you have ... also don't believe in evolution. They just think this word explains how they're right and a) is wrong. Evolution is little more than a 9-letter sequence that "proves" how smart they are. But don't mention any content of the theory (esp. not the death part)
a) people who don't believe in evolution
b) people who
I was under the assumption that the decay rates were an average over time. I mean, what's stopping every atom spontaneously deciding, "hey! it's my turn to decay!" and the whole lump of uranium you have immediately turns to lead. Wow, outside forces affect natural processes; who would have thought that was possible...
-SaNo
I think the informational limit is reached only in black holes and similar dense matter.
So that limit might affect the nucleus, but not the larger region of space it is in, like you suggested.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
to affect decay rates. Hint: it generates 15% of the world's electricity.
Finally! When I say "Science has been in a perpetual state of being wrong since it's inception", I can now point out fundamental changes in what is thought of as indisputable information. Understand that I am a working scientist, and my attitude is not meant to dismiss science, but to point out that people are often wrong in what they think is objective truth. The world is a bit too complicated for anyone to claim that they have a thorough understanding of the universe. Not to say truth is unobtainable, there is just a lot of it, and it's hard to really wrap your head around the exocentric universe in full.
I'm probably butchering this but. They think the sun is a result of a massive voltage potential and it's power is controlled from the outside by electrostatics. This could make the radioactive decay not controlled by the sun but both controlled by the electrostatic field. http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
Err - in this world Summer and Winter occur simultaneously at different locations. Are you saying that the decay rate is different in different hemispheres? Decay rates are location based?
I knew it! There has to be some use for that big white box in my kitchen!!!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that this could be used as a flare detector. 18 hours in advance? That's enough time to get exposed astronauts out of space and behind the shielding of atmosphere, protecting them from a heavy dose of x-rays. They wouldn't have to hope whatever shielding they have in the shuttle and International Space Station would be enough in a major event.
Also, if this effect is caused by a particle or energy wave resulting from electromagnetically induced fusion, would that imply that the weak nuclear force might be bipolar, like EM? Two atoms fuse, becoming more weak in the process, emitting radiation that makes surrounding atoms less weak. Maybe not bi-polar overall, but a bi-polar wave form in a mono-polar field? I suppose it could be the strong force. But, I'm having trouble working my mind around how that might possibly work. For some reason, the opposing effect doesn't seem like it would work like I stated for the weak force. The fact this occurs before the actual event also has me wondering if this has effects outside of our 3+1 dimensional perspective. Oh, well, it's just speculation, I don't have the facilities, the training, the time, nor the money to test something like that, or figure out the math for that matter.
The variations are all sorts.
Here are links:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html
http://www.allais.info/priorartdocs/shnoll.htm
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 the truth, or some other guy will prevail some falsehood instead
the world is owned by, and ruled by, the passionate, not the logical. luckily, people still respect logic. so to your benefit, you'll have an easier time prevailing over the loony tunes. but it means you still ahve to try and prevail, you can't just get by with proving something logically, and that settles it. you still have to dictate your findings, show where they conflict with the loony tunes, and vanquish them. or elese the loony tunes will work long and hard to have logic vanquished instead
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...that neutrino flux measuring gear might soon measure in the flower-pot-range rather than in cubic kilometers?
sudo ergo sum
I wonder if there is a correlation between the radiation decay changes and neutrino flux.
From a theoretical point of view I think
it's no surprise that beta decay rates depend
on neutrino flux. Since in beta neutrinos are emitted
and neutinos are fermions the decay channels where
the target state of the neutrino is already accupied
are locked.
meanwhile, if you can lose your deathgrip on rhetorical precision for a moment:
do you understand what i am trying to say?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, can't an experiment be done beaming neutrinos at a detector from a particle accelerator to see if neutrinos are the culprits?
When I RTFA, it reminds me a bit of the Davis-Barnes effect, as described by Irving Langmuir's talks on Pathological Science.
I watched 2012 at the weekend with my wife. We laughed a lot at the sheer implausibility of much of it.
But if neutrino emissions really do affect radioactive decay rates (I'm assuming more neutrinos == more decay) then the core idiocy of the plot, that neutrinos, the vast majority of which just pass through the earth unhindered, somehow overheated the core of the earth causing cataclysmic seismic activity, might still be idiocy, but instead of being totally way-out-there, may actually have a minor basis in scientific fact.
Bah.
With all the complaints about the signal-to-noise ratio decrease (since the good old days), this kind of article is why I still follow Slashdot after all these years. I'm usually just skimming, not reading TFA, or lurking. But it got me to dig up my password and log in for once. Thanks guys.
"...a stone was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its iron and clay feet, breaking them in pieces. Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were broken in pieces without distinction and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors that the wind carries away. Not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a large mountain that filled the entire earth."
If one studies the nature of human beings and their societies, much becomes clear. The scientific process is only a tool, a good one for attempting to understand the observable physical universe. But it is no better or worse than any other tool, and only how it is used, by who, to what ends and what is created carries actual value. Theories are hypothesis that have undergone extensive attempts to disprove without success through the scientific process, but they are not absolute because our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. Every posit thus comes with an extensive and often partially or mostly unstated list of assumptions and presumptions and conditionals and limitations. Understanding all this allows one great latitude in just how applicable "science" is in determining truth. That is, take it with a large grain of salt. It may be far better to realize how much we rely on others as "experts", how driven they are by other forces, how colored our beliefs and perceptions become and leech over into our perception of truth, etc.
An assumption has been that radioactive rates of decay are constant, or constant over the observable universe, and have been constant over the extant life of the observable universe. That a purely random process of radioactive decay have very constant average rates over long periods of time. I'm curious if this is the very first time someone has observed that radioactive rates of decay are modified by other forces present in the universe. If it is, and this is substantiated, and not disproved by additional application of the scientific process, then an assumption has been proven invalid. An assumption resting at the core of the "how old is the universe" and so forth. But this should come as no surprise, though I'm sure it will. But when we teach "science" as "truth", we must anticipate the day when a rock smashes our statue to bits and our world crumbles around us. I find it interesting how cautious scientists are, so I would hazard the majority of them are fully aware of the nature of the platform upon which they stand. But it is not the scientists here, is it? Who is it here, speaking in derision, speaking to counter? Are we being addressed by geologists, evolutionary biologists, micro-biologists, physicists, logicians, etc?
"Science" does not deal with the non-physical non-observable universe. It can not tell us anything outside of that very limited realm. I have spent forty-plus years observing human beings and their societies as a layman, and what I have observed leads me to be very cautious of just how much "truth" can be derived from our popular "science". How much establishments and agendas can influence what is researched, what is believed and thus not challenged, and so forth. I have observed magic and illusion, and know the human brain can be easily tricked, and the extended lesson is that just because what we can observe appears to derive from one effect, does not preclude the strong possibility that our lack of information has led us to misunderstand the reality. So the possibility that an unobserved force has operated upon the extent physical universe and that the effects of such being done can be misinterpreted as what we observe coupled with the human desire to feel good about oneself and to rationalize our behavior as "good" and the nature of scientific funding, publishing, tenure, etc - well, it is not so hard to believe and think beyond the flock, eh? The careful thinker must ponder that an inverse is possible - how and why can very intelligent, reasoned and observable of having "good" character human beings reach a d
Why would we expect a rate of something to be constant?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
that all media reporting on science issues is weak.
The article was painful to read.
"may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern"
yes. That means they have found a pattern in randomness. More specifically they are cherry picking.
then they 'answer' the equipment issue with:
""Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," "
A, that is contradictory to your previous statement
B, randomness clumps.
Look, an specifically define period, out side of it's total life time, has a probability of being above or below the constant rate
"meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?"
That is a poorly worded sentence for a science story. That aside
What that have done is see an aberration that could be do to equipment issues(they side step that question) cherry picking, or just random event there putting their pattern on top of.
Then they take it as real and speculate about what could get through the earth, and THEN conlcude it's nutrinos.
And then the best part.
Their observation indicated 33 days and they try to link the to a 28 day cycle and the toss in the core must spin more slowly.
So they went from an observation, to an entire new definition of several sciences.
I have heard moon hoaxes with a better chain of plausibility.
Experiments or GTFO
Bah.
|
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are a number of things about the Stanford press account (does anyone have a link to the actual article ?) that make me uneasy.
First, there is a small seasonal effect, and a coupling to neutrinos is postulated. But, nuclear reactors create strong neutrino fluxes (much stronger than the Sun, close to the reactor), and nuclear reactors rely on things like the half life of material. I would have expected a neutrino effect to be detected there. Has anyone calculated that the cross sections are at all realistic ? (It takes tons of matter to detect single neutrinos - so how does a 7% seasonal variation cause a detectable effect in much small masses of radioactive material?)
But, maybe it's not neutrinos but axions or something else. Whatever it is apparently has a very low cross section to matter, as the effect can pass through the Earth. Have they (or anyone) calculated that the cross sections are realistic ? (In other words, if some particle Y can pass through the Earth, is it realistic that enough of them would interact with a small sample of radioactive nuclei to cause a detectable seasonal effect?) Well, maybe that's in the paper too, but I doubt it.
Now we get onto shakier ground. The small seasonal effect is presumably just due to a change in distance from the Sun, so at least part of the physics is easy to grasp. The authors do a spectrum analysis, and find a 33 day term. What's at 33 days ? Well, the Sun has a 28 day term - but maybe the core rotates slower ! I have also seen papers that say that the core rotates faster so a 33 day term is not so compelling, at least without a physical explanation. Well, what is that ? If these particles can pass through the Earth and the Sun, why should they care about the rotation of the Sun ? What is a physical explanation of this ? Why would we expect a solar rotation effect at all ?
Also, what is the sensitivity and resolution of these spectral analysis ? How secure are the 33 and 365 day terms ? Which is larger ? Is 33 days statistically significantly different from 30.5 days ? (Many human effects have a monthly cycle, so a 30-31 day systematic error is conceivable.) Are there other spectral peaks ?
Again, maybe the article goes into all of this, but at this level, this is like a "just so story." It may sound interesting, but it does not inspire confidence.
Fun sentiment, but not true. For years critics ridiculed the book of Daniel for having someone name Belshazzar as king of Babylon. Ultimately, archeology supported the Bible. We could probably get into a long drawn out tit for tat about different things, but I am uninterested in that. I only wanted to point out that your claim about "every" time is nothing but wishful hyperbole. Perhaps, you only meant it that way, and not as literal truth - in that case I apologize. Let's not get into a flame war over it :)
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
Hello. I am a Bible believing slashdotter. My college degree is in theoretical physics at a state university. My beliefs have never caused a serious permanent conflict with my education. Many people here would tell me that it should. They bash and mock young-earthers or any number of beliefs which *they* see as irreconcilable with science. Just a couple of things I want to point out:
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. 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.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
Here's what's gross. You used an apostrophe to pluralize "kids" in your subject, then you misspelled "effect" as "affect", "affects" as "effects", "our" as "out", and needlessly capitalized "radioactive" and "neutrino".
This is the kinda stuff that turns people into pedants, and shit.
This sadly does happen every day.
...why do scientists still involve/include "Time" in their equations when determining or extrapolating theories on relativity such as the proper mass of the universe? In short wouldn't it be prudent to omit time from the equation since "time" doesn't exist? I think, and this is only a theory of mine, that there is no such thing as time.
I like how it starts with "wouldn't it be prudent to omit time since it doesn't exist?" and then follows it with "this is just a theory of mine, but I think time doesn't exist". So, basically, you answered your own question: No it isn't prudent to omit time because some dude has a "theory" (meaning, in this context, wild-ass guess) that it doesn't exist.
In that same post you also say:
True different colors of light do travel at different speeds, red is faster than blue, hence the "Red shift"
which is pretty much the opposite of reality and has nothing to do with red shift. All frequencies of light travel at the same speed (to within an extremely small experimental error based on measuring the arrival time of broad-spectrum pulses from extremely distant sources). Red shift is about the relative energy of photons emitted from objects traveling away from you (or similar phenomenon). The energy/momentum of a photon is proportional to its frequency. The velocity stays the same in all cases and for all observers, but the apparent frequency lowers when the source is moving away. Of the same light, not red light arriving first and blue later (wouldn't that mean you would see objects smeared out with a red head and blue tail?), but all the light being emitted shifting in frequency. If an object is moving toward you, the object appears blue shifted.
Wait, this is starting to sound like a joke. Woosh, maybe?
The enemies of Democracy are
What piques my suspicion is the claimed link between a solar flare and an observed drop in decay rate. If indeed this is a real effect and it has something to do with nuclear processes in the core of the sun as they suspect, then a solar flare should have NO bearing whatsoever on the decay rate. It stems from the simple fact that a solar flare is the release of pent-up energy from twisted magnetic field lines. Effects in the core have no effect on solar flares. It's akin to saying the subduction of a tectonic plate on Earth is a cause for a hurricane. They're very different processes.
Needless to say, there MAY be some new physics here and it definitely needs to be investigated.
What about your hypothesis that "scientists" always look beyond the most superficial analysis if it gives a desired result?
There are many many many in different fields pretending to be scientists (some even collecting huge paychecks and advising world powers) that do EVERYTHING they can to PREVENT anyone from examining the "data" from which they derive their hypotheses and doing anything they can NOT to conduct an in-depth analysis.
Sometimes if you ask a "what about this" you are steamrolled/blackballed before you can even finish a legitimate question.
Power and money are a significant motivator and OVERRIDING principle in much of science (yes, even in academia) today.
No single group has a monopoly on narrow minds. No group is immune to the insidious effects of mental stenosis.
YES, a TRUE scientist purely seeking knowledge and understanding SHOULD always evaluate his hypothesis from all angles and ASSUME that it is only a HYPOTHESIS which someday will be superseded by a more accurate description (think Newtonian physics).
YES, a TRUE scientist would be completely open with his 'discoveries', hypotheses, data and methods in the name of expanding knowledge and hopefully bettering mankind.
From Kavassalis's blog: "Neutrinos are the most likely candidate, since we know that they are actually there, but we also know that they don’t really interact with much. There is nothing in the Standard Model to suggest that neutrinos should effect radioactive elements in a way that could influence decay rates. There is also talk of some yet unknown particle that may also be produced in the sun that is interacting in these systems, but there is nothing within conventional particle physics to suggest what this may be. There is still obviously a chance that neutrinos (or something else) are just interfering with the detection mechanism (although the authors feel they have ruled this out), but there is also an interesting chance that there is some new neutrino physics being observed here. This is something to keep an eye on."
Actually that's only true if there is enough error in your measurements to cause a statistical distribution rather than simply the wrong answer every time.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Due to their speed, the neutrinos must be causing a time dilation field which does not slow the decay rate but rather expands time. What other explanation could there be?
This is a really interesting story to think about, and I don't want to completely dismiss this as rubbish, but there are several red flags. For one, consider the headlining scientist. The professor whose photo appears in the article is Peter Sturrock. If you read his wikipedia page, you will find it is mostly dedicated to his work on pushing for UFO study to be mainstreamed. Interesting. He actually has a reputation for looking for patterns in old data. He has done this to the Homestake neutrino data and also the Super-Kamiokande neutrino data. He did not work on either experiment. The biggest red flag is that no hypothesis was tested. This is not science. If you find a pattern in old data, you should design a new experiment, with a hypothesis to test, and see if it holds. If you look through the mountains of old data, you will find patterns in it. You can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. See, for example, predictions from the Bible. Until someone designs an experiment to test this hypothesis that increased neutrino flux changes decay rates, predicts how it will happen, and looks for and finds it, don't get too excited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
These spacecraft were fit with RTGs, which generate electricity via radioactive decay. If the rate of decay varies by distance from the neutrino source, how could that affect the characteristics of the spacecraft as a whole?
Isn't this the plot underlying the movie 2012? Solar neutrinos begin interacting with the Earth's core in an increasing fashion. I thought that was a silly idea, but this latest /. article made me shit my drawers.
You are oversensitive on the subject. GP was ridiculing those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, not all religious people.
I apologize if that's the way I came across. My comment wasn't directed towards the GP. Personally, I didn't even feel as though he was ridiculing those who believe the earth is 6000 years old, but chiding a subset of them. My comment was directed to those who would reply to his comment with harsh words that would only serve to alienate some people who could have otherwise been reasoned with.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"