Slashdot Mirror
Advance Warning System For Solar Flares Hinges On Surprising Hypothesis
cylonlover writes "Scientists may have hit upon a new means of predicting solar flares more than a day in advance, which hinges on a hypothesis dating back to 2006 that solar activity affects the rate of decay of radioactive materials on Earth. Study of the phenomenon could lead to a new system which monitors changes in gamma radiation emitted from radioactive materials, and if the underlying hypothesis proves correct (abstract), this could lead to solar flare advance warning systems that would assist in the protection of satellites, power systems and astronauts."
radioactive decay is not as random as we thought. So where do we get random numbers that are good?
Nothing can effect the rate of decay of radioactive materials; it is, has been, and always will be constant. Just like the carbon 12/14 balance.
Is there any way we could harness the power of solar flares to provide energy (either for space-based installations or to beam back to Earth)? Now if we know when they're coming farther in advance, it seems we could better take advantage of them. Not a continuous stream of energy, to be sure, but it a boost every now and then could help take the load off other sources of energy.
The greatest discoveries don't come from a "Eureka!", but from a "Huh, that's odd..." (Be careful though, the young earthers are already jumping on this to try and disprove carbon dating.)
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
If this is the case, then what does this mean for dating methods that depend on decay rates?
If the rate of radioactive decay can vary, how would this affect things like carbon 14 dating? Very interesting.
I always thought these were fairly constant, does this theory mess up any of our current Radiometric dating (and other similar) methods?
Sure a few solar flares might not do much effect, but when we are talking hundreds of millions of years ago the sun might of been in a totally different state that caused different decays over long periods of time, than we previously thought.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I recall reading about this here on slashdot several years ago (guessing '96), and thought that it was disproved not lang after. I might be wrong though
So has there been any research done outside of this JH Jenkins guy and his crew at Purdue? Has this hypothesis been tested and proven elsewhere in this world? I can't find any other publishers: http://tinyurl.com/d4bjfbx (A link to a search of published papers using "Solar Radioactive Decay" as the search criteria. All on-topic papers come from JH Jenkins and crew)
Makes total sense. The flare will appear AFTER a period of high activity, because photons and matter are damn slow (in a high density medium such as the Sun, neutrinos will be orders of magnitude faster. Note that photons under those circunstances will be significantly slowed). During that period, we will have more antineutrinos. Those extra antineutrinos may collide with neutrons (turning into electrons, and turning the neutrons into protons), or just transfer energy to protons/neutrons/electrons. This extra energy is released as a gamma.
This has to be either a systematic or a fluke. The only thing that could conceivably have an influence on nuclear decay rates is the neutrino flux, which would not show the diurnal variations that they claim, and which furthermore would be completely uncorrelated with solar flares, since neutrinos propagate at the speed of light from the solar core through the envelope, while thermal effects take millenia to propagate.
The paper on the effect is in a peer-reviewed journal, and the authors do not appear to be crackpots, but I notice that the abstract at least does not quote a confidence level for the result. And using an effect this speculative to base a solar weather prediction technology on, however, is pure idiocy.
Did someone take his research into Thimotimoline seriously? :D
I've been following this topic for a couple of years. Variation of radioactive decay has been noticed and reported by Jere Jenkins et al before.
In all cases, the results have been panned by the physics community as unlikely, not fitting with the current model, or failing to match with other measurements. The overall conclusion in each of these papers has been: "it can't be correct because it doesn't fit within our model".
The theory was disproved by analysis, not disproved by abundance of data.
Measuring radioactive decay is simple, and it would have taken an undergrad about a week to set up a logging system sensitive enough to gather evidence which would corroborate or disprove the theory.
No one thought to do this, Jere and friends were dismissed as cranks and crackpots.
I'm glad to see this finally reach the light of day. None of the criticisms of his work was based on evidence, and dismissing evidence is not real science.
Researchers at Purdue are busy creating early-warning earthquake detectors based around when their dogs all start acting weird.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Well, let's see. Both radioactive decay and neutrinos interact through the weak nuclear force, so to suggest that the scientific plausibility is "insane" is, well...
Agreed. It seems more likely that neutrinos are affecting the measuring equipment rather than radioactivity!
This has to be either a systematic or a fluke. The only thing that could conceivably have an influence on nuclear decay rates is...
Okay, wait.
This guy has evidence which your model doesn't account for. You're saying that the evidence can't be right because it isn't accounted for by your model?
That's not science, that's politics.
If he's got evidence, either counter with your own evidence or show that his evidence is fabricated.
Try actually being a scientist, instead of pretending to act like one.
Holy cow. Only on Slashdot can some internet tough guy say "I don't care what people who are actually studying this think. I know better because I can throw words like 'neutrino' and 'plausibility' around." And then get modded up to +5 insightful.
I'm not even going to waste a mod point making this a +4 instead. What's the point? Good grief.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
If everyone has that mindset to avoid testing "batshit crazy" theories, we will not produce new ones. Physics is not an area where truth is final..
You want repeatable experiments. Those guys want to try them - and you're calling that insane. Maybe that will lead to discovery of yet another, different explanation and mechanism that was attributable to neutrinos only on first estimation.
A good definition of "scientific" is "refutable". This one certainly qualifies. So let them try and not drown them in skepticism right away.
saying we can get anti gravity devices to work because it was on star trek.
The scientific plausibility of nuclear decay to vary because of neutrinos is one level below insane.
The standard model predicts nuclear decay with extreme precision, so until someone comes up with a repeatable compelling theory and or experiment that is consistent with the SM and this sort of effect on decay I wouldn't give this much thought.
You've got that backwards. If we get observations that prove nuclear decay is variable then SM must perforce be revised or thrown out the window entirely.
If decay rates are variable, how does this affect radioactive carbon dating methods? Are all dates derived from this method now suspect?
There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have...
And yet, not one of the people who looked into it actually took the time to collect evidence.
(Can you post a link to a paper which disproves this based on collected data?)
Interesting how calling a data set "non replicable" is seen as good science, while replicating the data (which is what the current paper purports to do) is "not really good science".
You are right. But I think you are ignoring the "prove" part. There is no proof. There is some studies but many contradicting studies.
If you want to overturn perhaps the successful theory that exists with poorly reproducible data, good luck. I agree it cant be dismissed without investigation but surely it is the theory that needs to do the pushing.
You make it sound like my opinion. Not the weight of scientific opinion.
The study of the natural world isn't decided by the best yo-mamma joke.
...predictive potential, that is, the rates of radioactive material decay changes before the solar flare occurs? That sounds completely outlandish!
I suggest pulling random numbers out of uranus.
But, but, ... all I get that way is some brownian numbers!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I don't understand it is not like we can't produce neutrinos in large quantities on demand.
Wouldn't we notice changes in decay rates by placing the same objects next to a reactor and observing a change? There must be a million different ways to investigate these claims.
For something seemingly this extraordinary the silence and general lack of interest is deafening.
What if the nuclear instability of both bodies is being affected by the same thing. That is to say, the underlying fabric of space-time maybe altered and it takes affect immediately* at both bodies but takes 39 hours for the sun to develop a solar flare. You'd still get the same result, but you no longer need neutrino output to be the causation mechanism. We often forget the sun moves too. Or other things like gamma rays wash over our solar system.
If we could only place a detector somewhere else int he solar system and see which sees the change of decay rate first...
*(or within 8 light-minutes)
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
What happens to "counts/second" in the situation where someone travels at high speed? If the relative passage of time is affected by speed, then wouldn't the number of counts be required to change in order to match the contraction/dilation of time?
Indeed I can.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312002341...
Thank you! That's an excellent counter-argument.
A quick look at the linked paper shows that they have covered all the bases - temperature, pressure, background radiation, radon, and so on. Their analysis appears to be spot-on, but at the same time I hope that they continue the experiment in order to really pound the last nail in the coffin.
From that same article:
Some of the measurements and analysis conrm the existence of oscillations [6, 7] whereas others contradict this hypothesis [8, 9, 10].
Note that this paper is fairly recent (published at the end of March) and is only one such paper which notes the caveats mentioned in the quote above. If we are keeping score, then there are 2 papers which see correlations and 4 which do not.
I am now cautiously optimistic about the [lack of] results, but in light of the recent findings by Jere Jenkins et al and the fact that other studies appear to find similar correlations, it might be good to actually identify the source of systemic error.
If for no better reason than to document the source of the problem to allow for better measurements in the future.
This line actually made me laugh out loud.
The US patent was filed to use the threat of force to prevent others from using their own liberty and property from using this idea. The idea is not protected by the patent.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
What if the nuclear instability of both bodies is being affected by the same thing.
Or... what if nuclear happenings in one place are affecting nuclear happenings in another place 93 million miles away?
And what if there is no propagation delay, that is the phenomenon occurs exactly simultaneously in both places?
Fascinating questions, indeed.
So, is Schrödinger's cat safer during a flare?
Even if they have data that is correlated with variations in the sun's flux,
what's to say that it is not some outside influence affecting both the sun and things on earth.
(It could be directional to account for a yearly variation when the sun gets between us and the source.)
I'd say we need a bunch more data and some thinking before this one gets added to our understanding of how things work.
Should be interesting to watch.
Not that this is necessarily the case right now, but there are other people working in the same field who regularly post comments, and less often, moderate. And quite often, TFA is a crock of bull slashvertisement or self promotion.
It happens. The system's not perfect.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
What are the implication for radio isotope dating?
that isn't holding up well. I would be surprised if it pans out.
It would be an interesting surprise, but there are a lot of accurate observations they would need to account for.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If it's true, then not really. It's still an average long term. If radio dating predicted down to the day(it doesn't) it might be off by a day or two.
Not that certain organization won't try to use their ignorance to paint it that way.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Standard Model has made some incredibly accurate predictions as far as QED does with electron transitions in simple atoms, and with the interaction of certain pairs off particles. When it comes to nuclear physics, QCD is much more difficult, and not anywhere near as precise as the previous examples. That is hard enough for simple interactions, with larger atoms consisting of many nucleons, nuclear physics/SM is still rough work when it comes to detailed calculations of decays. Additionally, one of the week points of the SM is some of the properties and interactions involving neutrinos.
So, no, there are not super precise calculations via the SM describing nuclear decay. It is an active area of research that still has a long ways to go, and there is room for things to fall through the gaps even without breaking the Standard Model.
As pointed out below, it is not like he is even saying anything based on the standard model... He might be confusing other predictions about atomic physicswith nuclear decay, unless there has been some amazing advances in the last year or two. Without some links to such work, it would seem the reference to the standard model is gratuitous.
GP is referring to the old FDIV bug
Analysis of Gamma Radiation from a Radon Source: Indications of a Solar Influence is the source paper.
Something that doesn't interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed.
Science. Where would we be without it?
Nobody can predict flares without an impressive secret laboratory with a stargate access. It's the only way to reliably manage the process of time travel and acquire a satellite phone for that call to the president.
This is just wrong.
There are many thousands of physicists who study neutrino flux from the sun every day. They typically use several 1000 tonnes detectors looking for interaction such as inverse beta decay and they see ~ 1 neutrino interaction per day. Try googling for Super Kamiokande, Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, ...
The solar neutrino flux is generated from nuclear reactions in the core of the sun. Solar flares are generated by magnetic effects at the sun's surface. These two phenomena are almost completely unrelated.
How much variance is there in the rate of decay? This is a bit disconcerting on it's face, at least as it relates to nuclear power. Would we have to be concerned about this directly impacting nuclear power facilities, in the event of a very large CME? Or at that point, would we be more concerned about cooking when we go outdoors?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers