Posted on 09/02/2008 8:14:57 PM PDT by B-Chan
Heres an interesting conundrum involving nuclear decay rates.
We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).
So that makes it hard to explain the curious periodic variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 observed by groups at the Brookhaven National Labs in the US and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesandstalt in Germany in the 1980s.
Today, the story gets even more puzzling. Jere Jenkins and pals at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data from these experiments and say that the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earths distance from the sun. (Both groups, in acts of selfless dedication, measured the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 over a period of many years.)
In other words, there appears to be an annual variation in the decay rates of these elements.
Jenkins and co put forward two theories to explain why this might be happening.
First, they say a theory developed by John Barrow at the University of Cambridge in the UK and Douglas Shaw at the University of London, suggests that the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies during each orbit. Such an effect would certainly cause the kind of an annual variation in decay rates that Jenkins and co highlight.
Eh? Einstein himself explained it:
"How long 5 minutes is depends on whether you are kissing a pretty girl or sitting on a stove!"
Yeah! Who ya gonna believe?
The theory, or your own lyin' data!
Dammit! I went into plastics semiconductors!
How can you tell? :)
And that the universe is expanding so that distant radiation is doppler shifted so far down in wavelength/energy that we can't even see it.
Naaaahhh,
The real bullet is that he could have become Jimmuh Carter!
That's very Buddhist...
He’s just about the only one whose coat is a pale shadow...
Thales.
Thanks. I learned something useful today!
I had a feeling you already ‘knew’ what I was talking about.
: )
“But Im not moving closer to the Sun, if thats what youre suggesting.
And Im not moving farther away, either.
You would be amazed at the increase in temperature!
And that is only a few feet of difference.
(I’m just being a goof!)
It’s been said, “When a theorist publishes his results, no one believes them but the theorist. When an experimenter publishes a result, everybody believes it except the experimenter.” (’cuz he knows what can go wrong, you see. )
The data, taken at face value, suggest a seasonal variation in the measured decay rates. One of the suggested explanations was a seasonal variation in the fine structure constant, which governs all E-M interactions, including atomic spectral lines. Variations approaching 0.1% in its value would cause havoc in all kinds of routine measurements, not to mention capricious variation in the familiar properties of matter, which in actuality are exquisitely and reliably constant.
What about spectral lines in the Sun’s atmosphere? What is alpha when you’re ON the Sun. It’s ridiculous!
On a discussion group, I saw a comment that this result would be worth several Nobel prizes, if correct. This understates the case considerably. It would be the end of modern physics as we know it, tantamount to “yarn world” in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ... anything goes!
If you torture the data enough, it will confess.
IMHO, most likely explanation? Measurement error. Some systematic variation in the equipment that is a function of ambient temperature might suffice. Even the old standard meter bar had a slight seasonal variation in length, despite exquisitely careful temperature control.
How did they measure the radiation? Geiger tubes? Do the tubes have a minuscule dimensional change with atmospheric pressure? Seasonally lower barometric readings could cause a very slight change in each tube's capture volume.
On a discussion group, I saw a comment that this result would be worth several Nobel prizes, if correct.
Perhaps. Depending on the explanation, of course.
Still, it would be way kewl if everything we knew about physics is wrong!
LOL...good post!
Might have to make that my new tagline...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.