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.

Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2010 at 2:32 pm
How about some substance, staying on topic?
Substance? About imaginary particles that behave like waves? You jest.
Whatever reality these itty bits of imaginary stuff are supposed to reflect is getting up to, it doesn’t fit neatly into the mathematical boxes constructed to contain it. No surprise there then.
I do have admiration for the cleverness and imagination of those who construct the theories, I just wish they wouldn’t confuse the model with reality, and then act all surprised when it doesn’t behave as expected. And I also wish that they’d concentrate on sorting out their stuff rather than lashing out at people with different ideas about how the universe might be conceptualised.
Roger Clague says:
August 25, 2010 at 3:19 pm
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 do make up a sizable fraction, is repetition a mark of quality?
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.
On cosmological distances the effects are dominant, not small.
AGW and The Big Bang are history. Wise up.
I don’t think they are related in any way.
tallbloke says:
August 25, 2010 at 3:33 pm
And I also wish that they’d concentrate on sorting out their stuff rather than lashing out at people with different ideas about how the universe might be conceptualised.
There are many different ideas about the Universe: Creationism, Tuesdayism, Electric Universe, Iron Suns, Astrology, etc. Science has its own take on that based on precise measurements and theories that are confirmed in great detail. Not every idea carries the same weight nor should be accorded the same credibility.
Drat, another slip-up! I do wish we had preview and edit functions. The requisite neutrino beam density I gave above should have been ~1E9 neutrinos per second per atomic cross-sectional area ~ 7E27/m2/s. My mistake – I should have ignored the atmic size (which is irrelevant) and stuck with the nuclear size, giving 1E12/2E8/1000/(15E-15)**2/pi~7E27/m2/s. Which seems on the high side. At ~1E15W/m2 (for energies ~1MeV) that’s more than a trillion times higher than the solar flux, but for a pulsed and concentrated muon beam it should nevertheless be feasible.
Didn’t Dr. Svalgaard talk of different ‘colours’ of neutrinos?
Is this an energy related thing?
DaveE.
If I may say…..AGW and the BB might be related via the TSI as AGW is a beneficiary of the pegging of TSI to .1% of W/m2 and TSI, if the Sun was to blame for the global warming/change, would need to be .6% W/m2. As there is no mechanism to account for the gap, ergo, ……CO2 must be the cause. But the TSI as measured may not be the whole of the TSI story. And that pegging @ur momisugly .1% is contested anyway(Scafetta, etc). I don’t know if Scarfetta doubts the SM but there are a few guys on here doubt the Standard Model and therefore, put the Sun back in play as to the cause of all the warming (which hasn’t happened since 1995 (CRU-Cambridge)). So. Scarfetta…. where are you?
….not sure if that is correctly put but that is the gist of this AGW / Solar issue as I see it. I copied and kept the thread with Scrafetta on the TSI issue. I shouldn’t speak for these other guys either but doubts of the Big Bang I take as doubts of the Standard Model itself.
I sometimes wonder, I really do.
If you observe such an unusual effect the first step is to make more observations using different measuring techniques, there is no difficulty in this instance.
If the effect is shown by all the different methods of observations you can devise then you probably have a real effect.
If it is only shown by one kind of measurement you have a problem with that measuring technique: and there is no effect except possibly on those measuring instruments.
Which may or may not be caused by little green men in Mars but in our electronic age usually comes down to digital dysfunction: better known to my generation as finger trouble.
That is how physics is done. And until this has been done thoroughly you cannot go forward.
Otherwise it’s all Star Trek stuff: fine entertaining hokum maybe but nothing to do with physics or science more generally.
Kindest Regards
Every time Leif Svalgaard starts posting (and posing), interesting and friendly conversation becomes impossible. It’s like having an asbestos lawyer as a dinner guest.
Well….there is WUWT Posting Rule # 8:
‘….When everyone is happy swimming around in the pool pretending it’s a jacuzzi, having a right old time, no one is allowed to pee in said pool. Even accidentally. Especially off the high board!!!…’
I don’t see any problem with Leif’s post. If you don’t know your facts and you put out WAG’s then you deserve a tongue lashing. If you want to speculate then have something to back it up. I thank Leif for his posts and attempting to keep a lid on the WAG’s. By the way for those who may not know WAG = Wild Ass Guess
…..Anyway.. I have often wondered at the role personal confidence has to play in science and also religion. And find this exchange to be fascinating from that view point alone. Anyway. Why would someone as distinguished as Peter Sturrock attach his name to this rather bizarre paper? I just can’t get my head round this whole thing.
I agree with Jim. As frustrated and insulted as you all feel, be confident and come back with science. We are all watching.
johnnythelowery says:
August 25, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Why would someone as distinguished as Peter Sturrock attach his name to this rather bizarre paper?
Peter has for some time been interested in parapsychology and UFO’s, Here is his book on his interests: http://exoscience.org/a-tale-of-two-sciences.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 25, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Peter Sturrock is a co-founder of http://www.scientificexploration.org/
A very intriguing article. It would be interesting if natural decay was a particle interaction rather than a random event. The main reason the Earth still has a molten core is radioactive decay. If the sun regulates radioactive decay then what of Venus which is much closer. The radioactive elements would have decayed at a faster rate, heating the planet. Also, this may have exhausted the radioactive elements leading to a cooling of the core, which would eliminate the magnetic field. It would be interesting to send a probe with an atomic clock towards the sun and see if the rate of decay alters.
There was a recent BBC science program called ‘Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?’. Although the Standard Model still holds sway, with the addition of dark matter, dark energy and now dark flow, it is looking less like an elegant theory and more like Frankenstein’s monster! So much so that scientists are beginning to accept that it is probably wrong. Great for theorists – they have a blank sheet of paper and can start again from scratch.
It will be interesting to see what theories will spring up. It is also a good example of what TRUE scientists do – if the theory doesn’t fit the facts start looking for better theories.
My own ideas tend towards the radical : Time is a property of matter only; the speed of light is zero – relative to the Big Bang [zero time]; the constant ‘c’ is the rate of expansion of the universe and so is variable over time; etc. Probably rubbish but nice to know that nothing is ‘settled’.
True scientific approach toward a bunch of competing theories requires that we pick the simplest one of those that fit observable experimental data and correctly predict new experimental data.
In cosmology, such a theory is the curvature theory of the stable Universe. It doesn’t require any contrived additions to the general relativity, such as accelerated expansion, dark energy, dark matter, or creation disguised as a beginning of time. It postulates that the curvature of space-time itself interacts with photons moving through vast intergalactic distances, making them shed small amount of energy on the way. This simple and clear postulate allows for exact explanation of all observable cosmological phenomena, predicting all important parameters, such as Hubble’s constant, intensity of the cosmic microwave radiation, its temperature, etc., much better than the “mandatory” Big Bang dogma. It also explains many things that the more fashionable theories try to ignore and shrug off (such as Pioneer 10 blues shift effect).
BBT has established itself in modern cosmological circles for exactly the same reason that made the AGW theory “mandatory” in the climatological community: conformism. Conformist’s ind doesn’t want to find the truth, it wants to construct a theory, however cumbersome and implausible, that would satisfy psychologically and financially the greatest number of (influential) people, and antagonize the least amount of (influential) people. Hence the George Lemaître’s Big Bang. (He came up with it after several long consultations in Vatican.) BBT is the consensus theory. It has nothing in common with the factual truth.
The wildest guess of all is to mistake consensus for reality.
The most cowardly behavior of all is to aggressively defend the status quo.
“OBJECTS ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR.” It is amazing that so many people read these words on their cars’ curved rear-view windows every day, and still don’t get it. When we look into the night starry skies, we look at the curved three-dimensional surface of the four-dimensional Universe, the same way we look at the curved two-dimensional surface of a rear-view mirror in the three-dimensional worlds. On both surfaces, the farther are the objects, the more the appearance that they are located at ever greater distances from us, the faster they seem to “run away.”
P.S. On the lighter note:
If we are to believe that, indeed, Christmas Eve
Celebrates what, in fact, has been done,
Then the time of Big Bang we could certainly hang
Circa March 27, 01.
Sorry, I was typing it too fast, and forgot the punchline:
If we are to believe that, indeed, Christmas Eve
Celebrates what, in fact, has been done,
Then the time of Big Bang we could certainly hang
Circa March 25, minus 1.
There!
Mike Edwards :
August 25, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Your point was covered under “not included the effect of the functional forms under the integration”.
You cannot get away from coupling constants, and the square of 10^-6 of the extra vertex necessary to describe any interaction with a neutrino flux.
BTW weak and electromagnetic interactions are known to many decimal places, and can be calculated as such, it is the legacy of LEP the validation of the Standard Model.
johnnythelowery says:
August 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm (Edit)
If I may say…..AGW and the BB might be related via the TSI as AGW is a beneficiary of the pegging of TSI to .1% of W/m2 and TSI, if the Sun was to blame for the global warming/change, would need to be .6% W/m2. As there is no mechanism to account for the gap,
Actually, there is:
Nir Shaviv, Racah Institute of Physics, Using the oceans as a calorimeter, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research and studiously and repeatedly ignored by Leif Svalgaard:
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter.
David A. Evans says:
August 25, 2010 at 4:30 pm (Edit)
Didn’t Dr. Svalgaard talk of different ‘colours’ of neutrinos?
Is this an energy related thing?
Different ‘flavours’. There’s salt’n’acetic acid, cheese’n’peptic acid and glucose’n’fudge.
It’s Quarks which have colours, spins and directions. And attributes like ‘strangeness’ and ‘charm’. It’s the psychologisation of sub atomic physics.
Then there’s the other shower of itty bits you get when you spend a few billion chucking energy packets into walls. Damn clever stuff. Problem is, the detectors which are carefully designed to find the expected itty bits after the atoms are smashed also find unexpected itty bits, and don’t find lots of other itty bits they are not designed to look for, which introduces confirmation bias. A lot these bits are only there for a moment, and then ‘POOF’, wink out of existence in recombination reactions with other itty bits flying around in the electromagnetic soup. It’s hard to make sense of, but by ignoring some bits and concentrating on others, some sort of order is wrought from the chaos.
Maybe some of the ignored bits cause changes in the rate of decay of radio-active material. It would be expensive to build detectors to look at the myriad of other bits too, our Pro Vice Chancellor of Physics winces every time the high energy physics guys go to him with a proposal for a new bit of kit.
“Why can’t you be more like the philosophy of science guys” he complains
“All they ask me for is paper, pens and waste baskets”.
Hmm. No one seems to have mentioned Riofrio’s cosmology, which predicts black holes inside the sun and Earth, a novel varying c explanation of ‘Dark Energy’, the Pioneer anomaly, a precise value for the baryonic matter fraction etc. The closet point made here appears to be that of Alexander, although he has not been clear that this must be a quantum gravitational effect rather than a classical one. And the SM does NOT explain the behaviour of neutrinos … just check out the latest MINOS and MiniBooNE results.
Kea says:
August 25, 2010 at 11:56 pm
And the SM does NOT explain the behaviour of neutrinos … just check out the latest MINOS and MiniBooNE results.
No problem, the SM will simply get the chef to come up with another flavour to explain the anomalous result. Of course, as they run out of ‘classics’ like beef’n’onion, and are forced to go for more exotic ones like prawn cocktail, there is a danger the hoi polloi might rumble the game…
johnnythelowery says:
August 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm
I agree with Jim. As frustrated and insulted as you all feel, be confident and come back with science. We are all watching.
Actually, I’m proud to be included on Leif’s black list, not once, but four times! 😉
Kea says:
August 25, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Neutrino oscillations are part of quantum dynamics and within the SM. An old story.
There is a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. It works building up on previous knowledge, not by demolishing all previous knowledge when a new effect is found.
The previous knowledge of astronomy was not demolished when the heliocentric system was shown to be the truth. It was adapted to that coordinate system.
Newtonian gravity was not demolished when general relativity was devised. It was assimilated as a limiting case of it.
Classical mechanics still computes with enormous precision where it applies, it was not demolished when quantum mechanics became necessary.
In the case under discussion, the weakness of the neutrino coupling is not disputable, and will remain whether the standard model becomes a limiting case of the string theories or of a future theory not yet imagined.
That’s utter nonsense, Paul. Let’s take a galaxy a billion light years away. Can you tell me what it looks like today? Of course not. Assuming that it is indeed a billion light years away and assuming that the speed of light is constant then you can only tell me what it looked like 1 billion years ago as that is the only information about it that has reached us today.
And I must reiterate that you are still using circular reasoning – assuming that which is to be proven.
And no, the whole edifice doesn’t hang together. If it did then dark matter and dark energy would not have been invented as placeholders for unexplained, unexpected observations.
Dark matter is 20% of the universe. It’s thought to be baryonic. Dark energy is 70% of the universe. No one knows what the hell it is. Visible baryonic matter, that which we normally think of as what makes up the whole universe, is actually only 5% of the universe if our observations and axioms are sound. Dark matter and dark energy are only observed indirectly by gravitational anomalies. The validity of these observations rely on our knowledge of gravity being perfect. So we end up with two choices – invent new forms of matter and energy to account for the observations or invent a new theory of theory of gravity to explain them.
On the question of why the sun’s innards aren’t 95% (fixed that for ya) dark matter and dark energy the answer to that is that dark energy is thought to be uniformly distributed throughout the universe. A whole lot of it altogether but vanishingly little in any comparatively tiny volume of space. Dark matter, if that’s real, clusters in and around galaxies but again it’s very dilute in any comparatively tiny volumes such as the volume of the sun.