Neutrinos and Decay Rates

[RichardMNixon]

Stanford-Purdue collaboration suggests the sun can change radioactive decay rates. Thoughts?

They say the decay rate reflects a solar flare 36 hours BEFORE the solar flare occurs, so they suggest neutrinos. Are more neutrinos emitted preceding a solar flare? Also curious about the statistical significance of the seasonal variation. And it strikes me as odd that no one at Brookhaven would have noticed the seasonal variations.

Can't wait for the Young-Earther's to get a hold of this.

 

[SagansHeroes]

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

This seems like a really big plus if it turns out to be true.

I don't think the change in decay speed would necessarily change the dating, if it gets slower in winter and faster in summer... it's like +1-1=0... but I'm certain that won't stop brain-dead YEC's trying to show it somehow proves God's existence.

 

[RichardMNixon]

This seems like a really big plus if it turns out to be true.

I don't think the change in decay speed would necessarily change the dating, if it gets slower in winter and faster in summer... it's like +1-1=0... but I'm certain that won't stop brain-dead YEC's trying to show it somehow proves God's existence.

Oh of course. Then they'll go on completely unrelated rants about how scientists can't ever make up their minds and change things all the time but god's word is eternal.

Why do you say it's a big plus? Solar flare detection?

 

[SagansHeroes]

This seems like a really big plus if it turns out to be true.

Why do you say it's a big plus? Solar flare detection?

Well it will help with the largest obstacle to sending humans further than low earth orbit for one. Between this and the recently discovered force of a simple magnets magnetic field (vs sun like particles) I believe it will help speed up the "send humans to Mars" campaign.
One suggestion was to have a small room that was better protected than the whole ship (thick lead etc.) so if we could find out a way to predict when a flare was coming ahead of time we could bundle the astronauts in there until it passed. This would definitely fit that bill.

 

[Pulsar]

Fascinating stuff. I don't know if neutrino rates change prior to a solar flare. If so, would that mean that solar flares are triggered by activities in the solar interior? Interesting.
Neutrino fluxes do vary in correlation with the solar core rotation, another decay variation that was noted in the article.
On the other hand, other experiments with different elements showed no decay variation: 238Pu on the Cassini spacecraft, nor the isotopes 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am showed any variation, so the effect depends on the specific element.
I wonder how neutrinos could possibly affect decay rates. To be continued, I guess.

 

[ThetaOmega]

Interesting stuff, given the normal neutrino flux from the sun, I don't personally see how a solar flare could increase neutrino output sufficiently, since neutrinos are a direct by-product of the nuclear reactions in the centre of the sun, and fly straight out of it, unlike the actual energy, that can, if I remember correctly, take 3 thousand (or million?) years to reach the sun's surface.
That was one of the concerns when the solar neutrino flux was detected to be 1/3 of what they predicted... that they we're getting a glimpse into some catastrophic decrease in the rate of nuclear reactions in the sun's centre, that wouldn't be reflected in it's output for thousands of years. Turns out that neutrinos could just change flavour in transit, thankfully.

There is one problem, however, if neutrino flux can affect the decay rate of elements, it's going to give tenure to the stupid hollywood science in the film "2012."

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Stanford-Purdue collaboration suggests the sun can change radioactive decay rates. Thoughts?

They say the decay rate reflects a solar flare 36 hours BEFORE the solar flare occurs, so they suggest neutrinos. Are more neutrinos emitted preceding a solar flare? Also curious about the statistical significance of the seasonal variation. And it strikes me as odd that no one at Brookhaven would have noticed the seasonal variations.

Can't wait for the Young-Earther's to get a hold of this.

This is crap. The assertion, if you read it carefully is self-contradictory. I would be embarrassed to publish something like this even as a preliminary observation.

First they are saying that the decay rate change was cyclical at 33 days, which implies a huge amount of shear in the solar core, I was prepared to suspend disbelief for two uncorrelated data points? I'm sure that this can't be the only chunk of cesium-137, were are the logs for all the other bits during the same time frame? Two points from one sample and no corroborative evidence? For this sample they don't say if decay increased of decreased. No evidence is given that the solar core rotates at 33 days other than that the data requires it... two otherwise uncorrelated data points.

But later in the article:
Then the difference is seasonal with the rate of decay increasing "slightly" in the summer. (implying that some particle accelerates decay with increase in particle flux density)
Then the difference was that the decay rate slowed for one sample "slightly" during a solar flare. (implying that some particle retards decay with increased particle flux density)

Some of the data was historical... with no controls (other than other historical data which for some reason wasn't mentioned).

This looks like more pattern seeking and just as consistent as biblical numerology.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

If true this could find very useful application in nuclear waste management.

Let's not hold our breath though.

 

[ThetaOmega]

Sturrock knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. "That's what I suggested. And that's what we have done."

Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days, the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.
The explanation? The core of the sun, where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos, apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.

Wait, hang on, they were testing for periodicity that matched the rotation of the surface of the sun, and when it didn't, the conclusion they reached was that the core of the sun must be rotating slower than it's surface?
Surely the conclusion you should reach is that the periodicity doesn't match? Not assume that this effect is real and make conclusions about the rotation rate of the core of the sun! Where is your corroborating evidence?

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Cesium 137 is used in atomic clocks...

One would think that if this was a real observation that the observation would have been noted by now.

I have after reading and rereading this, finding evidence that Sturrock deals in fringy UFO sensationalism and is currently feeding at the trough of popular celebrity for a thesis that would have earned a high school science student a failing grade. I believe this has ethical considerations.

[INFLAMMATORY RANT] What follows is an expression of outrage. Don't expect rationality beyond this point.

This bit of sensationalism has consequences for not one or two, but possibly hundreds of specialized disciplines. I don't envision this ending pretty.

It is my guess, and it is a guess, that this will cause reallocation of grant moneys, lab space, legitimate research could be dropped and this will be used to influence politicians that science is no more valid than creationism... The Texas Board of Education will probably begin rewriting science texts next to indicate the "fallacy" of radiometric dating.

Unless this horridly unprofessional paper actually bears fruit somehow, I believe this sort of hollywood sensationalism in science deserves humiliation and public chastisement. Due to the importance and volume of the work he has undermined and the political coinage this could become I'm not certain a week on the pillory isn't justified.

It is not people like Bill Maher that do the serious damage, it's people like Andrew Whitfield, Frank Tipler, and Walt Brown, and now Sturrock. [/INFLAMMATORY RANT]

 

[Deleted member 499]

Can't wait for the Young-Earther's to get a hold of this.

They already have http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/neutrino2.html

I wonder how neutrinos could possibly affect decay rates. To be continued, I guess.

I've seen it argued that it has to do with something called the quantum zeno effect and it's opposite process, the anti zeno effect. *Disclaimer* I don't pretend to fully understand it so this explanation will probably offend most physicists but it's what I gather the argument to be.

If you have a system which requires some kind of energy barrier to be overcome (which is too great for the barrier to simply be overcome) before a process can occur (e.g radioactive decay) then you have a probability that, on observation, a given particle will find itself on one side of the barrier (emitted) or the other (not emitted). What the quantum zeno effect says is that, if a system of this type is under constant observation then no particle can never tunnel through the energy barrier and thus the system will never change. In radioactive terms it would mean the isotope would never decay. The anti zeno effect has the opposite conclusion, it essentially says that, under the same conditions the particle will always find itself on the correct side of the energy barrier to initiate decay and therefore the system will decay very rapidly. (This is my understanding, please somebody correct me if i'm wrong).

This is where creationists come in. They argue that a neutrino interaction would count as an observation and a sufficiently large burst would trigger one of these effects. Of course they ignore the process that would inhibit decay and go straight for the rapid decay one and argue that a neutrino burst would, in one event massively increase the decay of isotopes used to date the Earth. It, as usual is complete bollocks but this is what I've seen argued.

 

[ThetaOmega]

Of course anybody cared to mention to the creatards the neutrino flux we experience every day from the sun?

 

[ExeFBM]

I don't think the change in decay speed would necessarily change the dating, if it gets slower in winter and faster in summer... it's like +1-1=0.

I'm curious, why is there a seasonal variation in solar output that corresponds to summer and winter (presumably northern hemisphere)? What relevance is 365 days to the sun? It can't be that it's due to our eliptical orbit, because then summer/winter would be the same and distinct from autumn/spring.

 

[Pulsar]

I'm curious, why is there a seasonal variation in solar output that corresponds to summer and winter (presumably northern hemisphere)? What relevance is 365 days to the sun? It can't be that it's due to our eliptical orbit, because then summer/winter would be the same and distinct from autumn/spring.

:?: :?: :?:
We're in perihelion around January 3, and in aphelion around July 5.

 

[ExeFBM]

I'm curious, why is there a seasonal variation in solar output that corresponds to summer and winter (presumably northern hemisphere)? What relevance is 365 days to the sun? It can't be that it's due to our eliptical orbit, because then summer/winter would be the same and distinct from autumn/spring.

:?: :?: :?:
We're in perihelion around January 3, and in aphelion around July 5.

How does that work, if a complete ellipse is 12 months?

 

[Pulsar]

How does that work, if a complete ellipse is 12 months?

The Sun is not located at the centre of the Earth's orbit, but at a focal point.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

Cesium 137 is used in atomic clocks...

One would think that if this was a real observation that the observation would have been noted by now.

Since none have seen fit to call me on this... shame on you all...

My information came from not merely a bad source, but an incredibly bad source.

Frankly I had misinterpreted the function of an atomic clock and had assumed... yeah that.

It is Cesium 133 that is primarily used in atomic clocks of greatest accuracy.
Rubidium clocks are used where a more compact design is required.
With a bit more reading, I've come to the conclusion that even trace amounts of Cesium 137 would not interfere in any meaningful way with the function of such a clock.

The rest of this still seems like voodoo however especially in light of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9609/9609150v1.pdf.
Sturrock's own analysis of the periodicity of solar neutrinos. It directly contradicts this recent assertion, and with more evidence.