Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Advance Warning System For Solar Flares Hinges On Surprising Hypothesis

Posted by Soulskill on from the correlates-with-bofh-laziness dept.

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."

28 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. But then by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    radioactive decay is not as random as we thought. So where do we get random numbers that are good?

    1. Re:But then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's an enormous difference between the rate of decay, and predicting a decay. The observation is only the rate is effected, not the occurrence of an individual decay.

    2. Re:But then by rwise2112 · · Score: 5, Funny

      radioactive decay is not as random as we thought. So where do we get random numbers that are good?

      Pentium processors?

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    3. Re:But then by Sique · · Score: 5, Informative

      Atomic clocks aren't based on radioactive decay. Just because they have "atom" in their name doesn't mean they are nuclear, e.g. based on a phenomenon in the atom core. Instead atomic clocks are based on the properties of the electron shells around the atom core.
      (Or to put it that way: atomic clocks are based on electromagnetics, not on the strong or the weak interaction.)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:But then by sgunhouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't be silly, it's based on neutrinos. Not that we have an effective way to block those either.

      Radioactive decay generally produces neutrinos (or anti-neutrinos) as one of the decay products, hitting the nucleus with the opposite particle (anti-neutrinos if the decay would produce neutrinos, etc.) would tend to promote the decay, though obviously the nucleus is a very small target and (anti-)neutrinos do not interact strongly in any case. But if high solar activity produces an excess of neutrinos, those decays which would normally produce anti-neutrinos will be promoted, or vice versa. (Not my field hence I'm not sure which is actually involved here.)

    5. Re:But then by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about carbon dating then? I have no idea, just asking in case someone knows offhand.

      Don't worry, you're not the only one here who doesn't how to date carbon, especially if nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen are also involved.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:But then by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't be silly, it's based on neutrinos.

      They THEORIZE it's based on neutrinos. They have no concrete evidence yet, I hold out for a more exciting explanation, because a new fundamental force would be way more awesome. Being neutrino-induced would be relatively boring.

      No. They HYPOTHESIZE that it is based on neutrinos.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:But then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A planet much further away would be less effected by changes in the sun thanks to inverse square law. I suggest pulling random numbers out of uranus.

    8. Re:But then by slick7 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would still infuence atomic clocks.

      Time was invented by the Swiss, so they could sell watches.
      Space and time are relative, the only space available is here, the only time available is now. Here and now. Hear and know.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    9. Re:But then by jiriw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ehm ... no. Atomic clocks do not work by means of radioactive decay. They work by measuring specific electron transitions in atoms through the photon radiation this phenomenon emits. That process is actually quite akin to what happens in lasers (and lasers do not use radioactive decay, except in some very specific cases as a pumping power source). Atoms used for this process are for example Rubidium and Cesium. The 'art' here is to create electron transition produced photons of such precision that their frequencies differ only minutely and be able to precisely measure that frequency of course. Things that make the measurements not as reliable as could be and thus are tried to be avoided are, amongst other things, uncontrolled movement of the atoms (resulting in doppler shift) due to too high a sample temperature (which makes the atoms move quicker and give an increased chance of collisions) and external radiation (which would include almost any type of solar radiation and certainly any type that could be of influence). So modern atomic clocks are shielded, cooled to near absolute zero and their atoms used are tried to be made to move in a very predictable way.

      I'm not a scientist in the field of natural physics. Only interested in it. (Full disclosure: I did study the subject for a year but was not quick enough with the math involved and too much interested in computers)
      It is very possible the oscillations in radioactive decay measured by the scientists is due to fluctuations in Neutrino emissions caused by or which also cause the solar flare. I wouldn't know any other type of solar radiation which could give an 'advanced' warning (because it is the 'first to arrive' due to going through almost everything with ease) and could influence radioactive decay even of (relatively) shielded samples.

      Neutrino emissions do not (measurably) influence atomic clocks because the forces involved in the 'atomic clock process' are electromagnetic. Neutrinos only interact with atoms through the weak nuclear force which do play a role in radioactive decay.

  2. Harness by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. Not Eureka by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Not Eureka by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      the young earthers are already jumping on this to try and disprove carbon dating

      Apparently the effect slows the rate of decay, meaning the isotopes are actually slightly older than estimated.

      True believers are above such mundane details. ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  4. Variable rate of decay? by mdvolm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the rate of radioactive decay can vary, how would this affect things like carbon 14 dating? Very interesting.

    1. Re:Variable rate of decay? by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends. These phenomenon might be peculiar to the isotope in question (chlorine 36), could be insignificant entirely, or could average out over a long period of time to the established rate in any case. Decay rates are not entirely constant in every particle, either: ionization can affect the decay rate significantly. I think we'll have to wait until further research to really know for sure the complete implications of this discovery, or indeed if it is even true.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  5. Re:Rubbish by Goaway · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is definitely not true. Radioactive decay through electron capture is well known to depend on external factors, including pressure and temperature. Inverse beta decay is an induced decay which depends entirely on an external neutrino flux, such as that from the sun.

  6. Re:Rubbish by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    Half right half wrong.

    Here's a whole section of crazy weird isotopes in crazy weird situations undergoing crazy weird decay modes that can be altered:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

    So in general that half of the statement is wrong because there's a microscopic handful of really weird, pretty well understood outliers.

    On the other hand your very specific ref to carbon isotope decay rate is apparently correct. That's very well understood, heavily studied, trivially cheaply and repeatedly tested (nice short half lives, more or less).

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  7. In other news... by Antipater · · Score: 3, Funny

    Researchers at Purdue are busy creating early-warning earthquake detectors based around when their dogs all start acting weird.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  8. Re:It's about time by arse+maker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Non replicable data also not really science.

    There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have. There have been many people coming forward since to show data that doesn't exhibit this pattern. Thats a huge problem.

    The burden of proof is on the claimant and its far from proven.

  9. I call politics by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I call politics by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      I'm saying I am very skeptical of the "evidence" because it makes no fucking sense at all. Anybody can find statistically significant, completely spurious correlations when given a large-enough mass of data. Would you also suggest that I take these guys seriously?

      I never said that the Purdue people shouldn't publish their result. Their paper simply notes a correlation. They don't claim to know why there is a correlation, and there could be many explanations. That's science. The most likely explanation is that the effect is a systematic. I say this because I know many other well-verified facts about how the world works, and this purported correlation is in conflict with all of these things. That's also science. Uncritically accepting one piece of data and therefore throwing out a century of scientific knowledge is not being a scientist. It's being a nutjob.

    2. Re:I call politics by arse+maker · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are many nonsupporting papers for this.

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071 (there are many more but you can find yourself if you are interested)

      If it was replicated easily then it would be a cause for a rethink but its not. It would also require new physics to explain and that by itself requires the strongest rigor before being accepted.

  10. Re:wasn't this debunked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    > :%s/96/06/gc

    Bah. You don't need to touch the whole file. You don't need to replace the 6 with a 6. There's no case to be concerned with, and there's no point to confirm a single change.

    0f9r0. Or just f9r0 if your cursor is before the 9, or F9r0 if it's behind it. Don't over complicate things. And if you're anal enough to post a regex invocation specific to an application, post the fastest way to make the change instead.

  11. Re:This is like by Velex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  12. Re:This is like by kav2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:Rubbish by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Informative

    The key though is that is beta decay. A process that neutrinos don't participate in.

    Say what? How does beta decay conserve lepton number without producing an antineutrino?

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  14. Re:Smell test by arse+maker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Experiments have been done. They don't match these findings. (http://www.nist.gov/mml/analytical/14c_091410.cfm)

  15. Re:wasn't this debunked? by ispeters · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you kidding me? There's only two bits different between 0 and 9. Why the hell would you waste time overwriting the entire byte?