Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lightning Can Trigger Nuclear Reactions, Creating Rare Atomic Isotopes (sciencemag.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the explosions-in-the-sky dept.

sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: Rare forms of atoms, like carbon-13, carbon-14, and nitrogen-15, have long been used to figure out the ages of ancient artifacts and probe the nuances of prehistoric food chains. The source of these rare isotopes? Complicated cascades of subatomic reactions in the atmosphere triggered by high-energy cosmic rays from outer space. Now, a team of scientists is adding one more isotope initiator to its list: lightning. Strong bolts of lightning can unleash the same flurry of nuclear reactions as cosmic rays, the researchers report in Nature. But, they add, the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms -- so the new findings are unlikely to change the way other scientists use them for dating and geotracing.

34 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. including ANTIMATTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2154230-lightning-leaves-clouds-of-radiation-and-antimatter-in-its-wake/

  2. before the creationists chime in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The accuracy of c-14 dating has already been firmly established (and calibrated) through the comparison of radiocarbon dates to dendrochronological (tree ring) sequences. So no, this casts no doubt on the accuracy of the technique.

  3. Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawatts! by mykepredko · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Doc told me so.

    If it's enough power to move through time, then there's enough power there to create new isotopes!

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  4. Interesting by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Interesting by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      It's interesting to note these scientists have just introduced the discovery of a natural phenomenon that creates rare atomic isotopes previously associated with cosmic rays entering earth's atmosphere, and are at once certain " the isotopes created by these storms likely constitute a small portion of all such atoms."

      Good point; how do they know these constitute a small proportion? Just because it has to be so, because reasons?

    2. Re:Interesting by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Because lightning storms don't have enough power to do this consistently at high rates elsewhere it'd be very apparent after every lightning storm that a bunch of these particles got created.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the effect of cosmic rays on 14C production in the atmosphere has been directly measured, and while there is a measurable shortfall there, the production from lightning can't amount to very much or the amount being produced from cosmic rays would be far off the observed atmospheric concentration. There's also a good historical record of 14C concentration in the atmosphere thanks to tree rings, glacial ice cores, and corals going back thousands of years. Example. Other than the mess made by 14C production since ~1945 thanks to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, those concentrations jive with what would be expected primarily from the cosmic ray production. If lightning contributes too, it would have to be a relatively small proportion or the equilibrium achieved between 14C production and decay would be at a much higher concentration.

      It's also worth noting that the gamma-ray production from lightning, which is associated with the process producing 14C, is only observed for the most extreme lightning events, detected at rates of around 50 per day world-wide versus the millions of individual lightning strikes that presumably aren't strong enough.

    4. Re:Interesting by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, we're talking about roughly 1.4 billion flashes per year, and they're not evenly distributed around the planet. As to the power of each flash, I don't know how you could get good readings and keep the sensors intact... only 10 to 20 percent of the bolts reach the ground so we need disposable balloons or something to get actual voltages. Getting amperes or wattage has to be an estimate. So, now we know that rare isotopes created... but is lightning also creating common isotopes? If so, how much and what kinds? There could be WAY more going on then these first clues indicate.
      More on lightning here:
      http://www.aharfield.co.uk/lightning-protection-services/about-lightning
      and here:
      https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/where-world-does-lightning-strike-most.html
      and here:
      http://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    5. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't understand how science applies the principle of uniformitarianism. It's not an assumption. It's a testable hypothesis. Like if physics of the past worked the same as today, then we should see "X" in the evidence, otherwise we will see something different. Whether the experiment was conducted 5 minutes ago, 500 years ago, or 5 million years ago affects the practical aspects of doing the science, not the fundamental nature of how science is performed by making predictions and then going out and comparing the evidence to them.

      For example, we don't assume 14C decayed in the past like it does today. We can count annual growth rings in trees, corals, and glacial ice going back thousands of years to see whether the carbon isotope results match. Likewise, for longer-term isotopic systems like uranium-lead we can make predictions about how nuclear processes worked, and see if the geochemical signatures in natural nuclear reactors such as Oklo, which was active almost 2 billion years ago. There are also many tests of whether nuclear processes worked the same in the past via such things as astronomy, where the distances involved are large enough that you are looking back far into time. If nuclear processes worked differently in fundamental way, for example, then you'd see differences in the way that light fades after a star goes supernova as you looked at events further and further away. Scientists have always been interested in the possibility that fundamental physical constants have changed in the deep past, and have looked for evidence, but it's kind of a boring exercise because usually the results show no detectable change to within measurement limits.

      We don't simply assume this stuff works exactly the same and ignore ways to test it, especially when there is evidence for variation of rates of *some* processes today, and some fundamental things about the Earth have changed over the long term (e.g., little or no free oxygen in the atmosphere billions of years ago, or changes in the Moon's orbit that have affected the tides). Those differences yield different products. The more fundamental nuclear stuff, not so far.

      The only people who think scientists blindly apply the principle of uniformitarianism are usually pseudoscientists with an axe to grind or people who don't understand how scientists actually use it. It's nothing more than an application of Occam's Razor until you've got evidence that significant change has actually happened.

    6. Re:Interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I spilled a glass of water on the floor earlier today. I was "at once certain" that no one would drown in the resulting puddle.

      If by "interesting" you mean "I have a general distrust of everything ever including science" then sure, let's go with that.

    7. Re:Interesting by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I spilled a glass of water on the floor earlier today.

      I'm sorry for your loss, but hey, the bright side is it could've been single malt Scotch.

      If by "interesting" you mean I have a general distrust of everything ever including science" then sure, let's go with that.

      Or. If it seems "thou doth protest too much," and your defensive behavior maketh you seem suspicious, my skepticism may not be completely unwarranted.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:Interesting by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and your defensive behavior maketh you seem suspicious

      This behaviour isn't defensive. It is "normal".

      By contrast your behaviour is religiously distrustful and aggressive. Maybe you should get a science degree so you can understand why your distrust is so incredibly misplaced.

  5. No Comments? by asylumx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the few articles that are actually related to science. Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments. I get that real science isn't "sexy" but it'd be nice to see a discussion about what this discovery could mean. What are the wild ideas for using lightning to create this isotope? What are the new possibilities? I imagine that we'll be able to generate them artificially, so what can be done with them? IANA Physicist but there used to be some here, and their comments were always welcomed and interesting.

    1. Re:No Comments? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      One of the few articles that are actually related to science. Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments. I get that real science isn't "sexy" but it'd be nice to see a discussion about what this discovery could mean. What are the wild ideas for using lightning to create this isotope? What are the new possibilities? I imagine that we'll be able to generate them artificially, so what can be done with them? IANA Physicist but there used to be some here, and their comments were always welcomed and interesting.

      Certainly and hopefully these discoveries will bring more funding for high energy physics labs. Hell we might even see a revival of a Tesla like super tower and in so doing discover many new things about how energy and matter interact. For one the plasma form of ball lightning is a fascinating manifestation of lightning that begs greater study, we know very little about what it can do to matter.

      I very much look forward to seeing scientists having bad hair days again simply because they were too close to the action. They might even figure out the great secret of achieving the Trump Hair effect which has mystified humankind for a very long time. Either that or Elon Musk will find a way to recharge his cars and transport trucks anywhere after having a person to person talk with Nicola about how to demodulate and frequency modulate extremely high energy streams of wave energy created by the movement of electrons. Unfortunately what will most likely occur is Russians will beat us to it by re purposing the old Soviet equipment and technology that created the woodpecker signals which were known to do all sorts of strange unpredictable things when fired up. The program was built to confuse and jam Norad but wound up doing some really weird shit that the Russian scientists became excited about. But the GRU and the Kremlin put the kibosh on the program when the project failed to do what it was intended to do, which was simply to screw with radar signals long distance.

      So yes there is a very great deal to learn from the physics involved in lightning and how to create it in different ways especially frequency modulated forms. One tends to forget that the visible spectrum of lightning is only a very small part of what is going on with Thor's Hammer.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    2. Re:No Comments? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Not a clickbait headline... and there are no comments

      Holidays season. People are with their families. The few people who don't seem to have any friends are posting both critiques and distrust of science in general on Slashdot, and a few odd jobs are posting political shit.

  6. What about an experiment by bobstreo · · Score: 2

    With a bunch of Tritium and some lightning?

    1. Re:What about an experiment by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      already known to happen with deuterium and tritium, thermonuclear reactions from lightning are cited in the footnotes of that paper.

  7. Checkmate! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Checkmate atheists! This PROVES the Earth was created by God 6000 years ago and your science is wrong! And the Earth is flat, and nobody has gone to the Moon, and the twin tower bombings was a CIA job orchestrated by the Nazis living in Antarctica.

    1. Re:Checkmate! by gtall · · Score: 4, Funny

      My money's on the nutcase who wants to use his self-made rocket to prove the earth is flat and Darwin's Survival of the Smartest, all in one shot.

    2. Re:Checkmate! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      if that nutcase suceeds with his rocket jump, he could get more chicks than a slasherdotter ever will. The horniest and most attractive more likely to pass on their genes....not the smartest.

    3. Re: Checkmate! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      he's repairing it so might get a launch somewhere either legal or before "the authorities" can stop him. whether he survives or kills/maims anyone remains to be seen, of course.

  8. Re:But can it create by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It's really not that big of a deal, when you consider what happens in some parts of the world. Isis killed 300+ in a mosque in Egypt. These are fellow muslims. "

    Fellow? Hardly. They were Sufis, apostates.

    "They are subhuman animals."

    You mean like Christians, who made war among themselves for hundreds of years because of some minor differences in interpretation of non-existent gods?

  9. Re: There is more salty water than air. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

    Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

    Heavy water toxicity in humans

  10. Re:Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawat by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    A typical lightning bolt lasts about 0.2 seconds and dissipates about a billion joules of energy. So 1.2 Jigawatts would be a small bolt.

    There are about 20 million cloud-to-ground lightning strikes in America per year. At a billion joules each, averaged over a year, that would be about 6 GW (or JW) of power.

  11. Lightning, Miller-Urey, and Life Itself by PollyAnna · · Score: 1

    Isn't this in keeping with the findings of the Miller-Urey experiment? Lightning makes things happen. Pretty cool, if you ask me.

  12. Re: There is more salty water than air. by Oceanplexian · · Score: 2

    You shouldn't spread FUD on a site where a non negligible portion of its users are nuclear engineers.

    Heavy water is not a product of a nuclear reaction. It's produced by filtering ordinary, natural water and extracting the D2O. The water is used to slow down neutrons in a reactor. In a PWR (almost all nukes) it's kept at a high pressure and does not boil out of the system. At some point the heavy water is replaced. At this time it will only have a slightly elevated level of tritium (Half life, only 12 years).

    The "steam" that comes out of a nuclear reactor is water vapor and has nothing to do with heavy water. It's part of a secondary coolant loop that has no interaction with any radioactive materials. Nukes don't pollute the atmosphere in any way. It is a 100% closed system.

  13. Already well known by purkrtadam · · Score: 1

    ...from the another world intro

  14. So ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... nature's version of a fusor.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. Re: There is more salty water than air. by cellocgw · · Score: 2

    Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

    Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

    Ok, that makes no sense: according to homeopathy, the more you dilute it, the more powerful it is. So we should keep diluting heavy water until it spontaneously explodes... or something.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  16. Re: There is more salty water than air. by thomst · · Score: 1

    ShanghaiBill explained:

    Heavy water is made by painstakingly separating it from ordinary water. Diluted it's completely natural.

    Even concentrated D2O is nearly harmless. You would need to drink a gallon or more before it had significant toxicity.

    Prompting cellocgw to respond:

    Ok, that makes no sense: according to homeopathy, the more you dilute it, the more powerful it is. So we should keep diluting heavy water until it spontaneously explodes... or something.

    Mod parent +1 Funny, please ... !

    --
    Check out my novel.
  17. Re: There is more salty water than air. by burtosis · · Score: 1

    And then there are people who go ahead and taste it for themselves

  18. Re: But can it create by dimko · · Score: 1

    Fully accepting gay rights atheist republican, reporting in. My ass hurts, but that's mostly due to haemorrhoids. You can call me snowflake. No shits given. Possibly due to haemorrhoids. It's funny to see you trying to do it on me.

  19. Re: There is more salty water than air. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

    You don’t need to be a nuclear engineer to know all that - you only need to be somewhat technically literate.

    I will quibble with part of your comment though. Nuclear reactors do not pollute the atmosphere during routine operation. There are circumstances where reactors have released (usually small amounts of) radioactive material into the air - these things are well-studied. Also, the potentially bigger environmental concern raised by some has been the affect of increased water temperature on fish and other aquatic life due to the release of cooling water into rivers and such. Regulation, combined with monitoring, helps ameliorate this.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  20. Re:Well of course, lightning produces 1.21 Jigawat by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    That puts the number of strikes about 2 orders of magnitude higher than you calculate.

    Strikes in the world are about two orders of magnitude greater than strikes in America because the surface area of the world is about two orders of magnitude greater than the surface area of America.