The Sun and radioactive decay rates *interesting*

[Valiant Champion]

http://kottke.org/10/08/sun-may-affe...ve-decay-rates

It appears that radioactive isotopes behave oddly before and during solar flare events.

More simply, radioactive decay is not constant if this hypothesis proves true.

[Del Valle]

If this is true, then that may mean that radiometric dating isn't as accurate as we once thought. , more ammunition to keep the creationists going.

[Gordon Freynman]

If this is true, then that may mean that radiometric dating isn't as accurate as we once thought. , more ammunition to keep the creationists going.

Actually if this is true then radiometric dating is giving us ages that are too young, nor does it support the insane "science" presented in the movie "2012" since the decay rates would be slowed by solar activity.

But let us not dwell on those who thrive on pseudoscience much longer.

Here's the original article published by Stanford.

There are a couple things I take serious issue with in this report. First, it is suggesting that solar activity is causing the change in decay rates, more precisely an increase in solar activity is corresponding with a decrease in rate of decay due to greater flux in neutrinos or some other unknown particle. But the article also states...

long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.

Now assuming that they mean winter in the Northern Hemisphere, (which is probably correct given the locations of the institutes involved) this suggests that a increased solar activity is speeding up the decay rates, because the Earth is slightly closer to the Sun in the Winter, which of course means we get slightly more radiation and neutrino flux. So here the data seems to be contradicting itself, or maybe the author just fugged up when writing, but if he did I would expect the error to be corrected by now.

Second thing I take issue with is this:

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.

Hold on a second there, their hypothesis is that the change in neutrino output caused by the Sun's rotation corresponds with the change in decay rates of radiogenic elements, and they found that it doesn't unless we assume that the Sun's core rotates slower than the surface which contradicts all previous theories of solar dynamics.

Basically what they are doing here is begging the question. They are assuming that their neutrino/mystery particle hypothesis is correct and then making conclusions based on that with no corroborating evidence. This is the kind of article I would expect out of a no-name university trying to over-hype their research, not a university as prestigious as Stanford.

This is an interesting story, but it needs a HELL of a lot more research and investigation, especially from other laboratories, before anyone should take it too seriously. The article only mentions 3 radiogenic elements, what about the several dozen others? How can we be sure that it's not the instruments that are being affected by the solar activity and not the radiogenic elements?

Right now I'm of the opinion that it's the instruments being affected by solar activity and not the radiogenic materials (not really convinced by their investigation by their own research mentioned in the article, there needs to be an unbiased team doing such things). However if it does prove to have some merit, then this could potentially be Nobel prize winning stuff.

[chamaeleo]

Right now I'm of the opinion that it's the instruments being affected by solar activity and not the radiogenic materials (not really convinced by their investigation by their own research mentioned in the article, there needs to be an unbiased team doing such things).

My thoughts exactly.

It's like claiming that a person's mass fluctuates in the presence of a breeze, while ignoring altogether the atmospheric forces applied to the scale.

[Gordon Freynman]

http://www.physorg.com/news203788993.html

Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)

September 15, 2010 Recent puzzling observations of tiny variations in nuclear decay rates have led some to question the science of using decay rates to determine the relative ages of rocks and organic materials. Scientists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), working with researchers from Purdue University, the University of Tennessee, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Wabash College, tested the hypothesis that solar radiation might affect the rate at which radioactive elements decay and found no detectable effect.

Atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable and decay over time by shooting off particles at a fixed rate, transmuting the material into a more stable substance. For instance, half the mass of carbon-14, an unstable isotope of carbon, will decay into nitrogen-14 over a period of 5,730 years. The unswerving regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials—such as remains of Paleolithic campfires—with a fair degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, which has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth.


Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have attempted to influence the rate of radioactive decay by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay.


Recently, however, researchers at Purdue University observed a small (a fraction of a percent), transitory deviation in radioactive decay at the time of a huge solar flare. Data from laboratories in New York and Germany also have shown similarly tiny deviations over the course of a year. This has led some to suggest that Earth's distance from the sun, which varies during the year and affects the planet's exposure to solar neutrinos, might be related to these anomalies.


Researchers from NIST and Purdue tested this by comparing radioactive gold-198 in two shapes, spheres and thin foils, with the same mass and activity. Gold-198 releases neutrinos as it decays. The team reasoned that if neutrinos are affecting the decay rate, the atoms in the spheres should decay more slowly than the atoms in the foil because the neutrinos emitted by the atoms in the spheres would have a greater chance of interacting with their neighboring atoms. The maximum neutrino flux in the sample in their experiments was several times greater than the flux of neutrinos from the sun. The researchers followed the gamma-ray emission rate of each source for several weeks and found no difference between the decay rate of the spheres and the corresponding foils.


According to NIST scientist emeritus Richard Lindstrom, the variations observed in other experiments may have been due to environmental conditions interfering with the instruments themselves.


"There are always more unknowns in your measurements than you can think of," Lindstrom says.

This confirms my original suspicions. Unless its some as of yet undiscovered particle being emitted by the Sun that's affecting the decay rates, which seems highly unlikely to me, then the only effect the Sun has on decay rates is on the instruments that measure the decay rates.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

There are a couple things I take serious issue with in this report. First, it is suggesting that solar activity is causing the change in decay rates, more precisely an increase in solar activity is corresponding with a decrease in rate of decay due to greater flux in neutrinos or some other unknown particle. But the article also states...

Now assuming that they mean winter in the Northern Hemisphere, (which is probably correct given the locations of the institutes involved) this suggests that a increased solar activity is speeding up the decay rates, because the Earth is slightly closer to the Sun in the Winter, which of course means we get slightly more radiation and neutrino flux. So here the data seems to be contradicting itself, or maybe the author just fugged up when writing, but if he did I would expect the error to be corrected by now.

No it is consistent with the hypothesis, because the radiation that actually reaches the lower layers of the atmosphere is less in winter, due to the existence of clouds, which have large concentrations of H2O, which absorbs radiation in the ultra-red section of the spectrum and scatters it in the rest.

The rate of radioactive decay is not constant anyway. It is a first order reaction (so to speak), so it is concentration dependent/dependent on the number of molecules/particles of the radioactive element.

This makes sense because the rate constant itself is usually a function a lot of different causes (Temp, Pressure, etc...) It would make sense that the excess magnetic field bursts from the sun could affect the rate constant, and change the observed rate.

Wait, what? What is the equation of radioactive decay? Isn't the differential equation dN=-λN(t)dt which gives N=N(t=0)*e^(-λt) assuming that the rate is constant? A statistical probablity? If it is a function of different variables, how can it be a constant?

[Gordon Freynman]

No it is consistent with the hypothesis, because the radiation that actually reaches the lower layers of the atmosphere is less in winter, due to the existence of clouds, which have large concentrations of H2O, which absorbs radiation in the ultra-red section of the spectrum and scatters it in the rest.

It's not the standard radiation that's supposedly affecting decay rates, it's neutrinos or some undiscovered particle.

slightly more radiation and neutrino flux.

Clouds are going to have a nil effect on neutrinos, as is pretty much anything that isn't a black hole.

[Pra]

Wait, what? What is the equation of radioactive decay? Isn't the differential equation dN=-λN(t)dt which gives N=N(t=0)*e^(-λt) assuming that the rate is constant? A statistical probablity? If it is a function of different variables, how can it be a constant?

Reread what I wrote. I said the rate is not constant. Obviously it isn't going to be because it's concentration dependent. Thus you have a solution the first order differential equation.

Your solution is correct, but the way you've written it is not convention. In regards to the phenomenon that the Op is talking about, the λ or rate constant, k, can be a function of numerous variables. Temperature, random particulate interference, etc... So if experimental data doesn't fit the model, when it has numerous times before, you have to reexamine the rate constant critically. IS the rate constant really constant for the entire range of observation? Is this a valid approximation? What variables are not taken into account for? Is the reaction isothermal or adiabatic? Are there more issues of kinetics you aren't looking at? Etc...

[Gaidin]

If this is true, then that may mean that radiometric dating isn't as accurate as we once thought. , more ammunition to keep the creationists going.

Don't worry, this doesn't change how far the furthest galaxy is from us, the speed of light, or how long it took the light of that galaxy to reach us. The universe is still at least 13 billion years old.

Wait, what? What is the equation of radioactive decay? Isn't the differential equation dN=-λN(t)dt which gives N=N(t=0)*e^(-λt) assuming that the rate is constant? A statistical probablity? If it is a function of different variables, how can it be a constant?

In a nutshell the rate is based on the element's half-life anyway, not a constant rate. It's proportional to the amount of the element you have.

[Pra]

http://kottke.org/10/08/sun-may-affe...ve-decay-rates

It appears that radioactive isotopes behave oddly before and during solar flare events.

More simply, radioactive decay is not constant if this hypothesis proves true.

The rate of radioactive decay is not constant anyway. It is a first order reaction (so to speak), so it is concentration dependent/dependent on the number of molecules/particles of the radioactive element.

I'm guessing the interference of the sun affects the rate constant which would affect the observed rate.

This makes sense because the rate constant itself is usually a function a lot of different causes (Temp, Pressure, etc...) It would make sense that the excess magnetic field bursts from the sun could affect the rate constant, and change the observed rate.

Anywho, I agree with Comrade Wiggum, after reading the story, there isn't enough data that's presented to be statistically significant to say that the sun's flares affects the observed rate. More research is needed.

[Valiant Champion]

It would be interesting if this proves another bit of evidence in dark energy/ matter etc.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

It's not the standard radiation that's supposedly affecting decay rates, it's neutrinos or some undiscovered particle.

Clouds are going to have a nil effect on neutrinos, as is pretty much anything that isn't a black hole.

Still for the northern hemisphere except for latitudes smaller than circa 10 degrees the horizontal surface solar radiation on top of the atmosphere is the smallest of all year in the winter months, and given that neutrinos and standard radiation are produced by the same chain of reactions, there most be some sort of analogy in their rate of arrival, so this explains it. But overall, I can't see what physcial parameter could be affected by particles that do not interact with mass or charge, so I don't see what these guys are suspecting that affects the reaction rates either.