Slashdot Mirror
Radioactive Decay Apparently Influenced By the Sun
quax writes "In school you probably learned that the decay rate of radioactive matter is solely determined by the halftime specific to the element. There is no environmental factor that can somehow tweak this process. At least there shouldn't be. Now a second study confirmed previous findings that the decay rate of some elements seems to be under the subtle and mysterious influence of the sun. As of now there is no theoretical explanation for this strange effect buried in the decay rate data."
Flame war starting in 3... 2... 1...
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/1839202/advance-warning-system-for-solar-flares-hinges-on-surprising-hypothesis
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
So first it's faster than light neutrinos and now solar influence on radioactive decay.
Sorry but I don't need this on Slashdot. Fox News has all the trash science I'll ever need.
Possibly the most exciting physics news of the year. Although the detection of the Higgs boson was big, it mostly confirmed what existing theory predicted. Interesting, important - but, to some physics, perhaps a bit boring.
If further measurements continue to verify this effect, there are some very interesting new physics to discover.
My first though: "Oh that is so cool! Wow, we're learning more about our world every day. I welcome this new discovery and hope to learn more!"
My second thought: "... Oh God. The creationists. The *creationists*. They're going to read this (repeated through a third party "science" website like Answers in Genesis), throw back their heads and shout, "Therefore, Jesus! Therefore JESUS! Science is wrong again! The Earth really is 6,000 years old! Radiometric dating is peudoscience invented by liberals and now we have proof!"
Fucking Christ.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
god did it!
halftime specific to the element
Some of the heavier elements even have a musical program.
(I think you mean half-life. Nice job, editors.)
The original claim dates from 2008 and 2009. (Original paper here- http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283). While TFA claims that this has been confirmed, the group confirming this shares many of the same authors http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205. This still has not yet been confirmed by a genuinely independent group. Also the claims still only focus on two specific isotopes Si-32 and Ra-226. One thing worth emphasizing is that this has no bearing on things like the age of the Earth or other uses of radiometric dating. The isotopes are not used generally for radiometric dating and the percentage change in decay rates being observed is tiny. Moreover, for many of the sorts of things we do radiometric dating we have multiple distinct methods that cross-check each other. For example, when doing zircon dating, one can date from both the decay of U-238 and that of U-235 which use distinct decay changes. This may turn out to be some very interesting thing going on, but as of right now the impact is limited even if it is correct.
I would bet that the instrumentation used to acquire these samples over the years has a temperature dependence in its measurement accuracy. Yes, temperature does fluctuate slightly relative to distance from sun even at these distances. Another example of instrumentation measurement errors being presented as some "mystical" physical phenomena.
makes sense, there's probably something from the sun that interacts with a nucleus inducing a slightly higher rate of decay.
If you think about what a particle accelerator is, we basically fling particles at other particles and induce a (in many cases artificial or otherwise bizarre) form of radioactive decay. If you figure every particle has some interaction cross section with gamma rays from the sun you will then have an observable effect as the sun cycles. You can probably produce the same effect with a laser (or equivalent for the appropriate range), or a particle accelerator if it's a particle- mass interaction, but the effect is really small, so no one noticed or cared before.
Of course the reason is that it's not 'explained' or with a good theory is that you'd have to figure out what specifically is the interaction, and whether or not it's nucleus specific (probably).
The data has no causation therefore it remains unproven that it is the sun causing this.
End.
False! When Chuck Norris heard of the radioactive waste storage problem he began to consume copious amounts of radioactive waste at each meal. The enviromental conditions in his mighty digestive tract were able to accelerate the decay of the radioactive material. The waste produced from Chuck Norris is no longer dangerously radioactive.
I wonder if Mars was subjected to more radiation if its core would spin more?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If neutrinos are the suspects, wouldn't it be easy to measure the decay rates of one of those nuclei in a strong neutrino flux, close to a large nuclear reactor or in a neutrino beam from an accelerator?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Now M.I.A. is controlling radioactive decay? That's one powerful finger.
Interesting. The effect is well under 1%, but above the noise threshold. Observed for radium (a beta emitter) but not europium (an alpha emitter), with the same experimental setup.
Although heat, pressure, and chemical binding have no measurable effect on radioactive decay, external particles hitting an atom certainly can affect radioactive decay. That's how chain reactions and particle accelerators work.
There's a suspicion here that solar neutrinos might be responsible. Beta decay involves the weak nuclear force, while alpha decay involves the strong nuclear force. Neutrinos are known to interact with the weak nuclear force.
The Fermilab accelerator, which can be used as a neutrino generator, was shut down and decommissioned in September 2011. That would have provided a way to test this hypothesis.
In the year 2013, the world learned it was wrong to fear Mother Earth. For all along, watching and judging humanity through the eyes of it's radioactive minions was
^^^
*******
FATHER ** SOL **
*******
+++
Coming soon to a theater near you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
People are stupid. Wizard's first rule. Think about what this means to 'carbon dating' material. What else does mankind yet to learn and ask yourself, "Does mankind know for a fact anything?"
such that 'gravity well' of the sun, or the simply its distance, effects the underlying process churning out radioactive decay, in a different proportion than it effects more complex entites like our measuring devices.
For all we know about sub atomic particles and forces this was something not in the least predicted.
What if another reaction within the sun could cause massive decay all over the earth? Periods of mass extinction or mass mutation.
On the practical side it hints that decay rate can be controlled. Could be really important for subatomic particle researchers trying to produce and observe particles with ridiculously short life spans.
If the effect could be produced on demand within a localized area for long periods of time then it could possibly be used to semi neutralize rector waste or to make normally unusable radioactive elements practical fuels.
I wonder if we would be able to harness this effect to build really efficient neutrino observatories? I'm imagining something like how a PET scan works, with a positron annihilating an electron to release a gamma ray, but instead with a neutrino interacting with a radioactive element to produce decay. That would be really awesome if it's possible. Nebulas, and the galactic core would become as transparent as windows to us. Exciting!
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist!
If the element is so full of neutrons that they are already flying off in all directions, wouldn't that giant supermega generator (You can see it in the sky on a clear day) spewing googlians of subatomic particals have some effect? (As in the spewed partials would be adding energy to the already very dense atoms) If I could test this I would measure the decay as a mass of a very dense element was moved closer to the sun. Sorry didn't read the arcticle maybe this was covered :-)
http://Lenny.com
Neutrinos are carriers of the weak atomic force. and as such the closer you are to the sun the more decay will happen...Because the weak force is what causes heavy elements to decay.... DUH!
It's a artefact of the detector, as in some unknown effect radiating from the sun is affecting the reading.
AccountKiller
If this is truly confirmed, then the obvious next step is to determine what particles being emitted by the sun are causing this effect. Is it a neutrino thing? Neutrinos aren't affected by the magnetosphere at all, IIRC. Once we know the particle(s) involved, there might be some useful tech emerge from it; perhaps it could be used to build a new generation of fission reactors where this effect can be used to enhance control or safety? I dunno... it's not my field at all but that seems obvious enough.
When I first read the story myself I was trying to figure out the connection between the sun and radioactive material on earth. I couldn't figure it out.
But then it hit me. I don't think the Sun is the "cause" of the change. I believe there is some other force at work in the universe that affects BOTH the sun and other radioactive materials on Earth.
For example, if you were on the ocean in a ship and you saw another ship and noticed a correlation that every time the other ship bounced up and down, your ship would do the same soon. You might think the other ship was the cause when in fact it was the waves in the ocean causing both.
If we're moving closer or farther from the Sun, shouldn't the differences in gravity make time flow at different speeds?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The radius of Earth's orbit varies from 147166462 KM to 152171522 KM, or about 3.4%. Since flux is a measure of per unit area, the flux at any point in the Earth's orbit should be number of particles per square meter for a sphere centered at the Sun, and that goes as 4pi(R)^2. So the ratio of flux from closest to farthest approach should vary by those differences squared which is close to 7%. Maybe I am not interpreting the plots correctly but the claimed effect looks a lot smaller than that. If you are going to throw around possible explanations than it is important to check the basic predictions are at least consistent. I do not know whether the results are right or not. I do think having members from the earlier experiment means this does not qualify as independent verification. I didn't check the original papers but I hope they explain in detail the statistical as more importantly the systematic errors and how the latter were controlled and measured. It would be interesting to place one of these detectors near a neutrino beamline and compare results for beam on versus beam off in a similar time of year. I suppose one might even be able to place multiple detectors at different distances away from the beamline axis and compare rates by distance away. One significant challenge would be calibrating the actual flux at the various detectors from the beam when it is on. If it could be done it would reduce some of the systematic errors, but a lot would depend on how long one has to sample to get enough data.
the Established Scientific Fact of constant decay rate was a stupid, ignorant, backwoods hick.
Being closer to the sun diminishes the effect that the effect of the Kryptonite on earth. Kryptonite inhibits radio activity (which is also why super man looses his powers.). Therefore being closer to the sun results in more radioactivity. :)
From most to least plausible order:
Random accidental correlation that cannot be repeated in independent experiments
Detector noise caused by Sun.
Solar neutrinos catalyze decay.
Undiscovered particles (dark matter) interaction catalyzes decay.
Gravity affects decay rates differently than relativity predicts.
Gravity affects clocks differently than relativity predicts.
It is hard to see how anything having to do with neutrinos could be effected by whatever local noon is in a lab in Isreal. Look at the time of day correlations.. If I did this in a lab in the US should I expect the same time of day results? If so how would such results square with the earth being transparent to neutrinos? Would this not be evidence against neutrinos as a cause?
Separatly it is hard to see how the paper gets away with voltage and temperature measurements which correlate so closely with the variation in observed instrument readings while not discussing any procedures to either characterize the implictaions of the variations on the actual measurement equipment.
I mean is it really that hard to regulate a low voltage power supply or control the temperature in a room?
Could this be an effect of interaction between the sun and dark matter?
Which means that our atomic clocks aren't exactly correct...
O.o
Disclaimer: i am an experimental physicist from another field (with experience in precision measurements).
looking at the arxiv preprint:
Why would one allow a +-3% variation in *absolute* temperature (figure 6). 6% of 300K are 18K (this is huge. My experiment needed to be recalibrated when the temperature changed by 1 degree). This explains also the *huge* fluctuation of the biasing voltage "lead accumulator" completely propotional to the temperature. which brings me to the next point: the paper makes is sound like this voltage was used *without further stabilization* for biasing the electronics. Why any sane experimentalist would accept such fluctuations when cheap and reliable means (controlled heater, 50cent voltage controller) is beyond my comprehension.
That being said, we talk about some difference on the order of 500 counts (per day, see the paper and multiply the numbers...), respectively 25 per hour or 1 per 2 minutes. I am no expert on it, but at such low count rates an exclusion of the influence of cosmic rays would be needed. Sasly the paper also does not show any dark count rate experiment. If they let the same detector run without anything inside and show the data, then we could make some conclusions.
Ideally they shoud have run an identical detector without a sample in close vincinity at the same time and correlate the fluctuations.
Nuclear disintegration is the weak interaction at work.
The weak interaction involves neutrinos.
The sun emits a lot of neutrinos.
Of course, it is not that simple, and physicists still have to churn out a theory. But the idea that the sun can influence nuclear disintegration does not looks odd to me
A text may say why stuff happened while science is about working out how stuff happened. For instance evolution has nothing at all to say about the role of God one way or another, that's a different field (why not how), the dispute we have there is a political one due to various groups worried that the size of their Christianity Lite flock is threatened by scientists poking holes in their dumbed down view of the universe.
It's pretty well all about some idiots preaching that nothing ever changes feeling threatened by those that measure change. That's politics, and God gets no say in it one way or another.
Let's try an example of a carpenter building a table. Forensic scientists can come in later and determine exactly how it was made, but why it was made and what thet carpenter was thinking at the time is not a question that is going to be answered.
Ignore me if you like because my entire country was damned to hell by Oral Roberts becuase he had his bags searched at an airport. That's the sort of bullshit you get where people use religeon as an excuse to push their own agendas (like the religeon vs science bullshit I'm referring to).
...but that is usually the best place to start an investigation.
This article is exactly that. "Hey. We just noticed a strong correlation. Let's try to figure out why."
In other words, science.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
So are we going to have Janet Jackson have another "wardrobe malfunction" as a result of this?
You could at least get the terminology right, FFS. It's "half-life", in case you're interested.
I remember hearing how a couple other test groups did come up with some anomalous readings here and there. Tantalizing hints, that kind of thing. And I have an open mind about stuff like this. It isn't impossible.
Got any good links to read up on?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
This was disproven by my office mate over the summer. Expect to see this paper redacted in the very near future.
Why do atomic clocks work 100% flawlessly all the time then? They're notorious for not randomly speeding up and slowing down (unless they change velocity). This is that neutrinos go faster than light BS all over again. Get bad results, publish to get lots of popularity and money, and then someone outs you by not replicating the results.
:P So some little alpha particle for example gets detected and counted and tada, you can calculate the decay rate which you actually knew in the first place since it's always the same.
Knowing almost nothing about this sort of thing, I can still disprove their idiotic conclusion. Observe:
decay rates are measured when a nuclear radiation particle is created from when a neutron...oh let's say blows up
So, what are solar flares made out of? Nuclear radiation. Specifically, the exact same kind which can make it through the atmosphere and be picked up accidentally by the sensor. In fact, all the sensor is is an electric impulse fed into a computer chip. If a completely different type of radiation causes an electrical impulse, it can be mistaken for radiation coming from your high-neutron isotope melting down. Tada, the end. Seriously, how did nobody think of that yet?
This result may not be an example, yet, because it has not been independently confirmed yet. (Who knows if it will be?)
Something like this is bound to happen sometime. (Some think it already has.)
Will physicists have the courage and humility to admit current theories are broken, or will they act like geologists with respect to Wegener, before nuclear fission was discovered?
It isn't about temperature, the stormier the sun, the more energetic atoms are... and so are less likely drop to an energy level where neutrons can spontaneously undergo beta decay. If the energy level is high enough electrons will smack into protons creating neutrons... But that is high energy plasma and won't generally be found on the Earth. ... Know anything about string theory?
Yeah, because slashdot always only carries peer reviewed research from top notch Ivy League universities.
Oh wait a second ... these papers are actually peer-reviewed results from Ivy League research universities.
Peer-review isn't immue to issues...
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated
Also, peer review is not designed to catch fraud, only to catch errors in process or analysis.
In the Ivy League they aren't immune to issues either...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Hauser
Also (okay, these aren't researchers, but perhaps this is more relatable...)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/education/harvard-says-125-students-may-have-cheated-on-exam.html
People are just people. Just because they are working at a fancy-schmancy university, or some other folks put another gold star next to their paper (peer review is often blinded by reputation), isn't the standard we should be touting. The only arbitor that matters is nature, as one famous physicist (RPF) put it, "Nature cannot be fooled"...
Does this mean the earth is 6000 years after all and I should go to church again?
Does imply that atomic clocks are not reliable?
How's this for a hypothesis to explain the affect of solar activity and radioactive decay? "Radioactive decay does not exist in isolation, but depends on the collision of solar particles to cause the release of the decay element. The higher the level of solar activity and the proximity of the solar source, the higher the rate of radioactive decay due to the greater number of collisions that occur on the target isotopes. While this affect and result are nearly constant in our solar system (at least, for the past few billion years) other systems with more local stars, stars of different mass/size, and in systems without any local stars the rates of radioactive decay can vary significantly from that observed on Earth."
I came out of the Purdue Physics Department with a Ph.D. and am deeply disturbed that Fischbach is doing physics by press release again. He his pattern he pioneeered when he developed the "Fifth Force" based upon bad data.
The main culprit behind these variations is most likely interference in the detector due to the solar storm itself.
If the group had done a reasonable job of ruling out detector variation I would be interested, but it is telling that they jumped to these wild conclusions before even considering if their detectors were being affected.
Their conclusions are nuts to put it lightly. There arguments that no one has completely disproven them are correct; however, neither has my argument that invisible green men from mars are responsible for their detector variations.
I came out of the Purdue Physics Department with a Ph.D. and am very concerned that we are doing science by press release. Fischbach got in trouble with this at one point when he developed the "Fifth Force" which was based upon not understanding the experiments he was utilizing in his theory. It is disturbing that the most likely culprit of detector interference was completely ignored by the group as they leaped to the exotic conclusion that variable nuclear decay rates are the culprit. Standard practice in experimental physics is always assume the detector is at fault when you get unusual results and it is interesting that this is treated merely as a side topic by this research. In short, this research is most likely bogus.