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.'"
No, this does not get you down to a 6000-year old Earth. Sorry.
Only Pink Hat Linux. I've never gotten more trim since I made the switch to Manlyuntu.
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.
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!
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Of course, most every phenomenon in the universe involves "other particles"... perhaps you want to rephrase that comment?
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...
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.
-- Alastair
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.
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.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Please don't 'help' the fight to bring some balance to the AGW debate. And to answer your question. Almost certainly not.
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 science, you will find that the more informed the debater, the more subtle the argument.
Let the mod wars begin
JE
Neutrino density is not going to vary a lot by hemisphere because the planet is fairly transparent to neutrinos. However, the Earth as a whole (including the southern hemisphere) is some 3% closer to the sun during the winter (January) than during the summer.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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."
Its a bit like correlating car crashes with the movement of galaxies.
AHA!! I just knew astrology had merit!
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.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
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.
... Mn54. Sigh.
Earths distance from the sun isn't constant. On Winter Solstice (Northern Hemi) the Earth is closer to the Sun than the Summer Solstice (Northern Hemi). Being closer Solar effects like the Neutrino flux would be more intense.
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."
You do realize that as a classical field theory General Relativity has nothing to do with atomic decay?
And that GR has been subjected to one experimental test after another for over 90 years now and passed them all?
Decay ... rates? What's a decay rate if time doesn't exist?
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
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).
Did anyone actually predict this *before* this effect was measured?
This is more like having a factor which influences the probabilities of the different sides of the dice... you could say things just got even more dicier.
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The astroengine article has a graph from the Jenkins 2008 paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
The graph shows variations of order 0.1%. A +-3% seasonal change in orbital radius would give a 6% change in R^2 so the effect is about 1/30 of the effect of the radius change. A change in radius to 1.6 AU should cause a drop to 40% of "solar particle" flux hence about 1.3% change in radioactive heat and thus RTG output, or about 10W. The power output measurement appears to have sufficient precision to show such a drop. Cooper does a much better job than I have with these back of the envelope estimates.
Coopers paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
Definitely a puzzle nuclear physicists should be looking at.
"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.
All rites reversed 2010
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.
"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
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
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. -This from an engineer who works specifically in the area of military satellite communications.
-FL
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.
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.
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
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?"