From Stanford University News a really wild must read science discovery.
h/t to Leif Svalgaard and WUWT reader “carbon-based-life-form”.
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.
BY DAN STOBER
It’s a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
Is this possible?
Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.
There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. “That would be truly remarkable,” said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.
The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and
when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.
Random numbers
But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)
Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: 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.

Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
“Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant,” Sturrock said.
The sun speaks
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.
The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins’ detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?
Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.
Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.
Reason for suspicion
Their findings strengthened the argument that the strange swings in decay rates were caused by neutrinos from the sun. The swings seemed to be in synch with the Earth’s elliptical orbit, with the decay rates oscillating as the Earth came closer to the sun (where it would be exposed to more neutrinos) and then moving away.
So there was good reason to suspect the sun, but could it be proved?
Enter Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun. While on a visit to the National Solar Observatory in Arizona, Sturrock was handed copies of the scientific journal articles written by the Purdue researchers.
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.”
A surprise
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.
All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is “communicating” with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.
But there’s one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.
“It doesn’t make sense according to conventional ideas,” Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, “What we’re suggesting is that something that doesn’t really interact with anything is changing something that can’t be changed.”
“It’s an effect that no one yet understands,” agreed Sturrock. “Theorists are starting to say, ‘What’s going on?’ But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.”
If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, “It would have to be something we don’t know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable,” Sturrock said.
Chantal Jolagh, a science-writing intern at the Stanford News Service, contributed to this story.

@ur momisugly Jim G says August 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm:
Jim G –
Of course the radial velocity at the pole is zero or infinitesimal. I was not implying it was necessarily FROM the pole, with its 0.0000 km radius. The effect does not have to be coming from the rotational surface, whether at 0.000 meter depth or 10,000km depth. But it might be coming from near the pole.
Still, rotational effects can create effects right at the axis. While not wanting to go into it, look at the jets coming out of black holes. Is there a periodicity to that? I don’t know. I doubt anyone has looked for that. Electrical flow in generators comes from rotational effects, but is axial. The Earth has its Auroras; while connected to the poles, I don’t know if they are directly tied to the rotational pole. It is more likely they are tied to the magnetic pole. Perhaps the Sun has a magnetic pole offset from the rotational pole.
All of these are questions I don’t know the answer to – I’m just tossing out ideas like Jenkins is.
The numbers from Stanford seemed to approach ~33 days as a limit, so it appeared there was some possible connection there…
Roger Clague says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:32 am
Can you please give some examples of the poor science and post-modernism you have in mind?
Here is a small selection:
Barry L says:
August 23, 2010 at 9:19 pm
tesla_x says:
August 23, 2010 at 9:51 pm
M. Simon says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Alexander Feht says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Mike McMillan says:
August 23, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Geoff Sharp says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:21 am
Konrad says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:29 am
Louis Hissink says:
August 24, 2010 at 3:30 am
Louis Hissink says:
August 24, 2010 at 3:38 am
tallbloke says:
August 24, 2010 at 3:52 am
RalphieGM says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:53 am
Joe Lalonde says:
August 24, 2010 at 5:07 am
vukcevic says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:22 am
Michael Flagg says:
August 24, 2010 at 8:02 am
tallbloke says:
August 24, 2010 at 2:50 pm
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 12:17 am
wesley bruce says:
August 25, 2010 at 12:27 am
Volcano guy Ed Murphy says:
August 25, 2010 at 4:21 am
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 7:18 am
Alexander Feht says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:06 am
Feet2theFire says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:48 am
Maybe you are not interested in new theories about the sun and the universe in case yours are proved wrong. That would be poor science.
I actually alerted Anthony to this [see at top].
Perhaps Doug said it well:
Doug Proctor says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:38 am
Reading the website (google search is so easy), you see such a long list of possible, fairly mundane possibilities, it is both amazing and interesting to see that we latch on to the most exotic, i.e. a radical alteration of the basic laws of physics. We humans love drama in our lives. We’re all Paris Hilton Wannabes.
Roger Clague says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:32 am
Maybe you are not interested in new theories about the sun and the universe in case yours are proved wrong. That would be poor science.
[Most] Scientists are ALWAYS alert to possible violations [or strange things] of the fundamentals of their sicence. Here are a couple of recent examples:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/full/4661030a.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3957 [click the PDF ]
“”” Feet2theFire says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:48 am
@ur momisugly Jim G says August 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm:
anna v says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:49 am
Feet2theFire says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:35 am
“Rather it would suggest an analogy to a rotating sphere: the speed at the equator is maximal, at the poles it is the speed of the axis , i.e. 0.”
I think you are talking radial velocity in your “speed”. “””
Well not to be nit picky ; hell why not ; I don’t think we are talking about radial velocity either; which does not have to be zero at the axis.
Would “curcumferential vleocity” fit the bill better.
There now; isn’t that more comfortable; but I’m still not offereing that as a mechanism.
“”” anna v says:
August 25, 2010 at 4:43 am
OK, here is a bit more of why it cannot be neutrinos.
Neutrinos couple to other matter only with the weak interaction and gravity.
Here are the coupling constants http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html
if strong ( nuclear) is 1.
electromagnetic is 1/137
weak is 10^-6
gravity is 10^-36 “””
Thanks for that link Anna.
How weird that the Electromagnetic Coupling constant is our old friend, the fine structure constant; which has a checkered history of its own.
George
Oops, typo! For the rate of change of the Hubble constant above I meant to put -dH/dt/H~1E-10/yr, not 10E-10 (ie., of order the reciprocal of the age of the universe). That’s what I get for writing 10**-10 first, then thinking it looked messy and deciding to put it in exponent notation instead.
Could this be related to the reason why AGW’s sea level monitors, mounted on docks moving up and down by plate tectonics, say the sea level is drowning the Maldives and other volcanic islands, not the islands are sinking…..yet my sea level hasn’t perceptably changed in Charleston, SC, USA in my lifetime of 64 years?
Maybe the unknown particles from the sun are causing the sea level monitors to read falsely when added to political agendas!
Can these particles melt Arctic ice fields?
I’m sorry, but you’re assuming that the decays involved here are only influenced by the weak force – if that were true then all beta decay rates would be the same, for all isotopes. This is clearly not the case.
The decay rates are also influenced be the energy potential in the nucleus that undergoes the decay. This is what gives different radioisotopes different decay rates. Now introduce a neutrino flux into the situation and ask what influence neutrinos scattering off the particles in the nucleus might have. The effect of the neutrinos is to alter the energy of particles they scatter off – changing the energy state may well affect the decay rate.
But we don’t need to debate this one. Much more straightforward to go do the experiment and see what actually happens – stick a sample of some radioisotope in a suitable neutrino beam and see what happens to the decay rate. Hell, we can envisage a series of measurements like this varying the neutrino beam energy, the flux density, etc and observing the effects. I feel some beautiful papers emerging from the mist…
How do the emissions from the sun differ with respect to solar flares and the wind from a coronal hole?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:43 am
It seems that the issue is one of agenda [post-modernism http://www.leif.org/EOS/2010EO330003.pdf ]. If you push pseudo-science then it is convenient to label real science as pseudo-science as well, so that there is no difference in outlook and anything goes.
Having witnessed the antics of the AGW ‘real climatologists’ over the last 10 years and institutional astronomy behaving like C16th italian cardinals confiscating Galileo’s telescope by denying Halton Arp telescope time to prevent him discovering more inconvenient empirical facts, I am forced to agree that to maintain the dominance of its preferred theories, institutional science does indeed employ the ‘anything goes’ principle.
But is it ‘real science’?
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I am forced to agree that to maintain the dominance of its preferred theories, institutional science does indeed employ the ‘anything goes’ principle.
That you got this backwards just proves my point.
This relation was studied many years ago by Prof. Giorgio Piccardi.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2010 at 1:52 pm .
That you got this backwards just proves my point.
What you are seeing is the reflection of your own nonsense.
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:12 pm
What you are seeing is the reflection of your own nonsense.
And rude they are too. Goes with their territory, I guess.
Prof.Piccardi link: Solar Phenomena & Chemical Tests
http://www.rexresearch.com/piccardi/piccardi4.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:23 pm (Edit)
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:12 pm
What you are seeing is the reflection of your own nonsense.
And rude they are too. Goes with their territory, I guess.
You’re the specialist, at rudeness. Still, you have to bluster your way along with a failed theory somehow I suppose.
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:30 pm
You’re the specialist, at rudeness.
You just keep flaming. How about some substance, staying on topic?
Leif, Tallbloke,
Back it down please. ~ ctm
Does our galaxy have a black hole at its center? Do black holes have spin?
[Most] Scientists are ALWAYS alert to possible violations [or strange things] of the fundamentals of their science.
Are you a member of a political party, a member of the Science Soviet or the Pope who speaks “Ex-Chatedra”?
We must repeat, after Galileo: “E pur si muove”!!
noaaprogrammer says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Does our galaxy have a black hole at its center? Do black holes have spin?,/i>
Send it to Bill O’Reilly’s show, to the no-spin zone! 🙂
Enneagram says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Are you a member of a political party, a member of the Science Soviet or the Pope who speaks “Ex-Chatedra”?
Another flamer…
noaaprogrammer says:
“Does our galaxy have a black hole at its center? Do black holes have spin?”
Yes, there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Someone posted a pic a few months ago, wish I’d saved it.
And IIRC, black holes have spin, charge, mass, angular momentum, and all the zeroes snipped from Zimbabwe dollars. That’s why they get really big.
Charles, sorry. Fortunately I only have time for the ten minute argument tonight.
George E. Smith says:
August 25, 2010 at 10:54 am
“”” Feet2theFire says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:48 am
@ur momisugly Jim G says August 24, 2010 at 2:03 pm:
anna v says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:49 am
Feet2theFire says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:35 am
“Rather it would suggest an analogy to a rotating sphere: the speed at the equator is maximal, at the poles it is the speed of the axis , i.e. 0.”
I think you are talking radial velocity in your “speed”. “””
In any event, as long as we need to invent “dark matter” and “dark energy” and cannot explain quantum tunneling and entangled particle communication as well as a multitude of other issues, I do not believe we should mock ideas that do not conform to present equations and their explanations of the physical world. That was my only real point. My favorite examples are the flybys of distant astronomical bodies which invariably disprove previous theories of what they are and how they developed etc.
Leif Svalgaard
August 25, 2010 at 10:22 am
Roger Clague says:
August 25, 2010 at 9:32 am
Can you please give some examples of the poor science and post-modernism you have in mind?
You list 21 posts.
The posts you listed are not a selection of poor, pseudo- or post-modern science. They are ALL the posts that support the plasma/electromagnetic theory of cosmology. They are post you don’t agree with. You add a few oddities to damn by association.
They oppose the conventional Big Bang theory that you, as a mainstream astrophysicist must use.
You say
If true, it would very exciting, but would not ‘overturn’ science as we know it, because, again, the ‘effect’ is very small.
The ‘effect’ of Einstein’s relativity theory is very small but ‘overturned’ Newton’s theory. It is consistent repetition, interesting predictions and falsification that are critical. It is not the size of the effect.
We latch on to the most exotic, i.e. a radical alteration of the basic laws of physics. We humans love drama in our lives. We’re all Paris Hilton Wannabes
You use insults, defer to authority and damn by association. These are tactics, commonly seen used by ‘warmists’, and are not part of science.
AGW and The Big Bang are history. Wise up.