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."

14 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 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
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 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.