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."

Comments

Repost of

[buchner.johannes]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/08/15/1839202/advance-warning-system-for-solar-flares-hinges-on-surprising-hypothesis

Re:Repost of

[b4dc0d3r]

It's not a repost. That story was about predicting solar flares based on the hypothesis presented here.

They were posted out of order, certainly, and this one is about 2 weeks too late, and offers no value over the previous story.

But this is a better article about the underlying experiments, even though the website waited until today to push it out. Slow news day at WaveWatching.net? Or is this just pimping an old story for blog views?

It's worse than a dupe, and you calling it a repost does not properly insult the report.

Re:Repost of

[michelcolman]

Actually, they were posted in the correct order but then the sun messed up space-time so that they arrived out of order.

Re:Repost of

[bcrowell]

It's not exactly the same, but it is the same kookery warmed over. Here's a summary.
Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?
There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.
Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.
He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al. [Ding 2009]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008]. Despite this, Jenkins and Fischbach continue to speculate about a neutrino effect in [Sturrock 2012]; refusal to deal with contrary evidence is a hallmark of kook science. They admit that variations shown in their 2012 work "may be due in part to environmental influences," but don't seem to want to acknowledge that if the strength of these influences in unknown, they may explain the entire claimed effect, not just part of it.
Jenkins and Fischbach made further claims in 2010 based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.
Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.
In agreement with theory, high-precision experimental tests show no detectable temperature-dependence in the rates of electron capture[Goodwin 2009] and alpha decay.[Gurevich 2008]
He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1, Astropart.Phys.32:42-46,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156, Astropart.Phys.31:407-411,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Re:Cue the young earth creationists

[Bryansix]

0...-1...-2...-3

Where are we going with this?

This is exciting

[cunniff]

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.

Re:This is exciting

[garglblaster]

I second that. Here we are looking at more sophisticated effects of the weak force by solar neutrinos. This is exciting indeed!

Re:This is exciting

[volsung]

This argument about solar influence on nuclear decay rates has been going on for a few years now. The experimental issues are hard to interpret, because you have to be able to rule out external influences on your counting apparatus. It is extremely hard when the period of your signal matches the orbit of the Earth, which aliases all sorts periodic behavior that has nothing to do with new physics. There are seasonal variations in temperature, cosmic rays, the voltage delivered by the power company, foot traffic near your lab, etc, etc. Verifying that none of these things can possibly influence your results is what takes all the time.

A semi-random selection of earlier papers on the subject:

"Experimental investigation of changes in beta-decay count rate of radioactive elements" (1999):
Claiming 24 hour and 27 day periodicities in the decay rates of cobalt-60 and cesium-137
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9907008v1.pdf

"Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates" (2010):
Reports of an annual periodicity in the decay rates of chlorine-36, silicon-32, manganese-56, and radium-226.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924

"Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates: Constraints from the MESSENGER Mission" (2011)
A study of cesium-137 decay rates on a spacecraft going to Mercury show no change as the spacecraft travelled closer to the Sun.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074

"Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant" (2012)
Cesium-137 decays in a detector underground (shielding it from most cosmic rays) show no significant periodicity, with limits much lower than claimed signals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662

"Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline" (2012)
Studies of strontium-90 decays show a variety of periodic variations, ranging from 0.26 per year to 3.96 per year.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3107

This list goes on and on. There is hardly any consensus on the issue.

Re:This is exciting

[quax]

It seems to me there is enough accumulated oddity to follow up with some space based measurements in order to get a better signal to noise ration and eliminate some possible systematic error sources.

Re:This is exciting

[volsung]

I think the problem is that the link is not yet established. What we have is a link between count rates in a detector observing a sample of some isotope and time of year, which no one disputes (we reasonably assume they are not making up their data). The argument is whether you can make the inductive leap to the claim that radioactive decay rates depend on the amount of solar radiation. As shown in some of those papers above, other experiments don't (like the test with the MESSENGER probe) show the effect you would expect if solar radiation were the cause.

Even if we do find there is an external influence on decay rates (which would be pretty nifty), that definitely does not imply that the times of individual radioactive decays are predictable.

Re:This is exciting

[volsung]

Another relatively easy control would be to conduct simultaneous experiments in the northern and southern hemispheres. Many external effects (like temperature) would be 180 degrees out of phase, while the distance from the Sun will be essentially the same for the two experiments.

Re:This is exciting

[ceoyoyo]

You missed the one where they found a seasonal variation just like this one, but it disappeared when they looked at the ratio of counts for two different elements. The rest of the paper is an analysis of the seasonal variations of their detectors.

I don't have the reference with me, but someone else will probably post it. These guys have notably NOT done the simple experiment of monitoring both Cl and one of the elements they insist don't respond.

Re:This is exciting

[Black Parrot]

I think the problem is that the link is not yet established. What we have is a link between count rates in a detector observing a sample of some isotope and time of year, which no one disputes (we reasonably assume they are not making up their data). The argument is whether you can make the inductive leap to the claim that radioactive decay rates depend on the amount of solar radiation. As shown in some of those papers above, other experiments don't (like the test with the MESSENGER probe) show the effect you would expect if solar radiation were the cause.

Apparently there are some other papers that cast doubt on the basic finding. See the comment by "AK" at http://wavewatching.net/2012/09/01/from-the-annals-of-the-impossible-experimental-physics-edition/

That comment also points out that this "second study" includes one of the authors of the first study, so it's not really an independent confirmation.

And the first plot at that link (the original study) doesn't - IMO - actually look very supportive: the average period is about right, but the phase isn't very stable. Sometimes the peaks line up almost perfectly, but other times the measured peaks are almost at the zero of the astronomical curve. (The next plot is pretty impressive, though.)

Smart money - IMO - is that this, like the FTL neutrino thingy, will turn out to be in the equipment rather than in the phenomenon being studied.

Claim not new

[JoshuaZ]

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.

Re:Claim not new

[Mt._Honkey]

Yeah. There were also come claims with Cl-36, but multiple measurements have the effect in opposite directions and different magnitudes (http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357, so they seem more likely to be due to instrumentation effects than real differences

This is one of those "extraordinary evidence" things, and we aren't there yet. Annual variation is always suspect because experimental conditions can change subtly with the weather.

Re:Claim not new

[quax]

Well, this is a different data series so I still think it's fair to say that the second study confirms the original finding, although further completely independent confirmation is highly desirable.

Also noteworthy: This apparently only affects beta decay i.e. it seem to hint at an unknown reaction involving the weak force only.

The video goes into some more detail, revealing that they found periodicities that are typical for the core of the sun, only neutrino interaction could account for that.

Re:Not enough

[Bryansix]

Step 1) See science I don't agree with
Step 2) Find no logical arguments to shoot it down
Step 3) resort to ridicule and call it a day

Re:Cue the young earth creationists

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Shhh... creationists don't understand negative integers. Or even zero.

Re:Oh. Oh no.

[PPH]

I'm not worried. If this effect is based on solar neutrino flux or some such thing, what would that have to be to change radio carbon dating to give an earth age of 6000 years vs 4.5 billion? And then, what would the effect of the level of solar activity resulting in that neutrino flux do to life on earth? Probably fry it to a cinder.

If the effect exists, it is probably operating on the parts per million level. Which wouldn't do more than knock a few years off the age of Lucy.

Mars?

[WindBourne]

I wonder if Mars was subjected to more radiation if its core would spin more?

Neutrinos?

[rrohbeck]

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?

Re:Neutrinos?

[quax]

This would be a good follow up. But producing a high flux of neutrinos is not trivial especially the right kind. The current thinking is that there are three types of neutrinos and that the latter change via a process called neutrino oscillation on the way from sun to earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

Re:Neutrinos?

[volsung]

Since you mention neutrinos, it is also worth noting that there was similar discussion (5 or so years ago) as to whether we can observe periodic variation in the number of neutrinos seen on Earth using various experiments. (Note that periodicities in neutrino rates are not what physicists call "neutrino oscillations". That's an entirely different effect.) Those papers claiming a periodicity included one of the authors on this study of radioactivity decay, and the analysis techniques were disputed by other papers as giving an unacceptably high rate of false positives. The experiments presented counter-analyses showing no significant signal once the probability of false positives was dealt with. (Disclaimer: I was tangentially involved in one of those papers.)

I haven't looked closely enough at the radioactive decay papers to see if the same issue has cropped up again here, but the neutrino periodicity argument is a good example of how these signals can fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Re:Neutrinos?

[bcrowell]

Yes, something very similar to this has been done:

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071 , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 622 (2010) 93-96

It puts limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed by Jenkins and Fischbach in 2008. And yet Jenkins and Fischbach are still speculating that the effect they claim has something to do with neutrinos.

One of the hallmarks of kooks is that they ignore contrary evidence.

Re:Oh. Oh no.

[u17]

Look at the graphs in the article. The residual variations in the rate of decay are proportional to 1/R^2, where R is the Sun-Earth distance. Compare that to the force of gravity, F=GMm/R^2, where GMm is constant. Perhaps the Sun is helping to pull the atoms apart via inflicted gravitational force on a very slight level. It doesn't have to be anything fancy like neutrino flux.

Re:Not enough

[ocean_soul]

If this is true, and there is actual causation and not only correlation (both these things are not clear to me at the moment), my first hypotheses would probably have to do with the quantum Zeno effect, rather than gravity. Although an explanation using gravity variations is also a valid hypotheses. But I agree that speculative hypes like this do not belong on /.

(disclaimer: PhD in physics, working in space-science)

Looks real, but minor

[Animats]

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.

Re:The logical argument to shoot it down.

[quax]

The hypothesis is that a yet unknown weak force interaction triggered be the sun's neutrino's is responsible for this.

It'll hardly be the first time that a scientifically observed phenomenon has no current theoretical explanation.

If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.

Re:Not enough

[quax]

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.

Re:Oh. Oh no.

[__aajfby9338]

Perhaps the Sun is helping to pull the atoms apart via inflicted gravitational force on a very slight level.

Then please explain how solar tides affect the decay rate while much stronger lunar tides do not.

Re:Oh. Oh no.

[Hentes]

Every flux (including neutrino and gravity) is proportional to 1/R^2 because we live in 3D. If gravity affected radioactive decay we would've noticed that on our space RTGs. Neutrinos are the most likely answer.

Re:and this validates many aging tests

[Anonymous Coward]

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?"

Mankind knows for a fact that every time a new discovery is made, silly bints such as yourself will drastically overestimate the amount of science it overturns.

Re:Not enough

[morethanapapercert]

Oh I dunno about that. It's been well established that large (in the astronomical sense) and dense rotating objects exhibit Frame Dragging . I believe that contractions and expansions of a stellar object are a possible source of Gravitational Waves

Putting those two effects together, it is easy to imagine that some change in the make up of the sun as it evolves can also affect the nature of the gravity well around it.

Re:Not enough

[Sulphur]

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.

News cycle linked to neutrino cycle. Film at 10:45.

Particle physics

[macraig]

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.

Re:Oh. Oh no.

[Quiet_Desperation]

The sun has brighter gravity.

bad experiment

[drolli]

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.

Re:Not enough

[ceoyoyo]

They're also both papers from the same guy, contrary to what the article implies.

Re:Cue the young earth creationists

[LordLimecat]

Or it may have been absolutely none of that, and people are trying to infer stuff that shouldnt be inferred. The point of Genesis 1 was not to give a scientific account, and trying to turn it into one utterly misses the point ("there is a creator"; "work is good, but so is rest"; as well as setting the model of 6 periods of work and 1 of rest).

This is all as absurd as if I said "good day" to someone, and they inferred that I meant that nothing bad had happened on that day in any part of the world. Just take it at face value, and dont go beyond it.

Re:Not enough

[quax]

These are two different data series involving cooperation with different research partners. The article claims confirmation not independent confirmation.

Re:Cue the young earth creationists

[MaskedSlacker]

And yet there is more ridicule. What gives?

There's nothing wrong with ridiculing those who start with their preferred answer and selectively ignore evidence to make it seem possible.

Re:The logical argument to shoot it down.

[tnk1]

Over-hyping the current observations is likely to result in the public getting this message: "scientists are wrong, again".

Publicity is always a dangerous path between over-hyping things, and making sure there is enough information to maintain interest. Particularly since the sciences tend to rely on public funding. So it's perfectly reasonable for scientists to want to show what they are working on.

The problem is not when it doesn't work out, but when they actually cut corners and make themselves look incompetent. That is a one result of a rush to gain priority in the scientific community.

Re:Not enough

[tnk1]

News cycle linked to FTL neutrino cycle. Film last night at 11.

Re:The logical argument to shoot it down.

[nadaou]

> If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.

consider if you will where we place our neutrino detectors.

neutrinos

[manu0601]

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

Re:The logical argument to shoot it down.

[LWATCDR]

Or the effect is not on the actual decay but on the detectors. Interesting but a lot more study is going to be need before an new interaction proven.

Re:Cue the young earth creationists

[LordLimecat]

Especially when you're reading a translation of a translation of a translation.

Theres generally only one level of translation involved-- we have a remarkably good record of the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament. Theres only the translation from hebrew to english in most bibles you will pick up (or greek to english for the NT).

Re:Cue the young earth creationists

[myowntrueself]

This talk is foolishness. There's plenty of difference between them and me. Can you cite any data that creationists give that does not come from a book that they wrote? I have not ignored millions of years of geological record and, well, proper research to come to my conclusions as they've done.

The thing is, and in saying this I'm not saying its right or wrong, the point of dispute is whether the geological record does indeed represent millions of years. So asking them to not ignore 'so-called' millions of years of geological record is not going to get you anywhere at all.

Personally, I don't like things like red shift nor carbon 14 dating as giving scientific evidence by themselves unless they can be corroborated by other evidence. For example, there are formations of galaxies and other objects where it is clear that the red shift data in these cases is, somehow, giving a false reading. If we can't identify exactly why red shift data in these examples is giving a false reading, how do we know that it is giving a correct reading in other cases?