Solar flares are teleconnected to earthly radioactive decay

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.

Peter Sturrock
Peter Sturrock, professor emeritus of applied physics - photo L.A. Cicero

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.

Share

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
320 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 23, 2010 10:09 pm

The standard model is in big trouble. One place that might be on firmer ground is the modulation of inertia predicted by Maxwell and described in Feynman’s lectures on physics. Chap. 28 Book II IIRC.
http://inertiaquestion.blogspot.com/2010/07/inertia-question.html

Lulo
August 23, 2010 10:11 pm

A fascinating post. Thanks. Who says all the discoveries are made by people in their 20’2 and 30’s ? Way to go Prof. Sturrock!

August 23, 2010 10:16 pm

Graeme W says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:00 pm
A couple of things struck me. One was that 33 day cycle. They tried to explain it by saying that the core of the sun may rotate at a different speed to the outer layers (Leif, are you able to comment on that part of the report?
The core does rotate a bit slower than the outer equatorial layers, but not that much. On the other hand, the very innermost part has not been measured yet.
It takes a photon 250,000 years to make it’s way out of the core. A neutrino makes it in a couple of seconds.

Dr. Dave
August 23, 2010 10:17 pm

I found this article fascinating. What I really liked is that they encountered something they didn’t expect while looking for a way to generate truly random numbers. A variable rate of decay of isotopes? Who woulda thunk it! Seeing as the most common time standard is the average of about 200 caesium clocks located all over the world I find the implications intriguing.
They have identified an apparent correlation with solar activity but as yet haven’t proven causation. So far I see no opportunities for increased taxation or redistribution of wealth so I suspect it will be difficult to obtain funding for further research. Still…pretty interesting.

a jones
August 23, 2010 10:22 pm

It certainly seems that they have stumbled upon something very strange and consequently very interesting too.
And I do not question their results: they seem to be meticulous physicists.
But it is far too soon to jump to conclusions.
As they state they have checked their detectors carefully and it does not appear that they are in error.
But how can they be sure?
If such an effect exists it might well affect the detectors rather than the radioactive decay rate. And you cannot tell which it might be since apparently all the detectors they used work on similar principles. And you cannot readily calibrate that even against no input signal because there is no guarantee that the detector[s] would show any effect beyond registering zero with no active input. That is they might only fluctuate in response to some outside effect if they have a signal to detect.
The first test must therefore be to see if the effect can be discerned using another kind of detector which should not be affected by the unknown but supposed cause of the fluctuation: radioactive calorimetry to detect the decay rate by the production of heat springs immediately to mind.
This may or may not be practical although given the scale and the sort of figures they are quoting it should be: although not used much these days it is a very sensitive technique with a fast response time.
Otherwise we will have to think of something else.
That something odd is going on I am fairly certain but what it might be I am not at all sure. It just might be a genuine Boojum, in which case we are going to have to modify our theoretical notions, but my instinct suggests it’s a common or garden Snark.
Kindest Regards

CRS, Dr.P.H.
August 23, 2010 10:24 pm

Anthony Watts says:
August 23, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Since nobody has said it yet….
We have modulator/transmitter, and detector.
Neutrino communications is a possibility.
——-
REPLY:
Thanks for that, Anthony! The physicists at Fermilab are actually coming close to that concept, please see:
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/
Neutrinos blasting between Minnesota and Illinois….it’s an amazing experiment with some fantastic apparatus!!

Philip T. Downman
August 23, 2010 10:26 pm

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.
Are there other indications that the core of the sun rotates more slowly or does he just make up an ad hoc explanation?

glen martin
August 23, 2010 10:27 pm

“”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.””
Wasn’t neutrino induced radioactive decay the basis for the original solar neutrino experiments?

insurgent
August 23, 2010 10:31 pm
August 23, 2010 10:36 pm

Something is wrong on the conclusions of the researchers. They say the Sun rotation rate of the core is slower than in the surface; however, that declaration seems to not be real.
The information recovered by SOHO indicates that the rotation rate at the Sun core is faster than in the rest of the radiative envelops; it would mean a rotation period briefer, not lengthier, than 25.05 days:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5831/1591
On the other hand, the Earth is engulfed by the Sun’s atmosphere; therefore, it could be a kind of “communication” between the Sun and the remainder bodies of the solar system. Perhaps it could be the explanation to Dr. Bond’s iron stained grains; who knows?

August 23, 2010 10:43 pm

“The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.”
This is the clue.
Radioactive decay is constant.
Time (for the observers) changes, depending on their distance to the massive source of gravity. Gravity is a curvature not only of the space but also of the time, remember?

August 23, 2010 10:47 pm

P.S. In this context I would also recall the “blue shift” of the Pioneer’s constant-frequency signal, registered by NASA as Pioneer left the Solar system and went farther and farther from the effects of the Solar gravitational field.
P.P.S. The Hubble’s “red shift” is of the same origin, in my opinion, and the Big Bang theory is a tortuous attempt to marry modern physics and anthropocentric creationism.
Now everyone and his dog will nail me to the cross and laugh at me. Go ahead, I’ve heard it all.

Espen
August 23, 2010 11:06 pm

Fascinating, thanks for posting! If radioactive decay is variable, not only may c14 dating be less reliable, but even our timekeeping based on atomic clocks. The definition of a second becomes relative!

DeNihilst
August 23, 2010 11:11 pm

Dark Matter, not nuetrenos.

crosspatch
August 23, 2010 11:17 pm

I thought this article seemed familiar:
http://www.astroengine.com/?p=1189

August 23, 2010 11:22 pm

Espen… Read insurgent’s post:
August 23, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Seems to have already been disproved:
Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

jorgekafkazar
August 23, 2010 11:32 pm

It just seems too good to be true. What is the news from the Melvin Dumar Institute of Science in Utah?

James Bull
August 23, 2010 11:33 pm

Great post it’s by scientists talking to each other and sharing what they find (interesting and puzzling) that we gain knowledge and understanding of the world around us. Just shouting you’r wrong I’m right and no I won’t let you see my data does no one any good.
As I say of relativity it’s all aunts and uncles to me.

Espen
August 23, 2010 11:38 pm

Nasif Nahle: thanks, I glanced through that paper, but it doesn’t mention the solar flare part of the story, does it?

Leon Brozyna
August 23, 2010 11:38 pm

Everybody just knows that the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes has a known, steady value. It’s been a well established fact for decades. It’s settled science.
Whoops — no sooner is the science settled and along comes someone to upset the applecart.
So much for settled science — that concept is a contradiction in terms.
Ever notice how reality has a way of taking a bite out of everyone’s assumptions when they’re not looking?

Scarlet Pumpernickel
August 23, 2010 11:51 pm

http://i34.tinypic.com/1y1zpz.png
So does the sun effect earthquakes as well?

August 23, 2010 11:53 pm

. . . 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 . . .
So the Earth really could be only 7000 yrs old.
I should have asked them about that when I visited the moon landing sound stage at Johnson Space Center.

Robert of Ottawa
August 24, 2010 12:00 am

CRS, Dr.P.H. August 23, 2010 at 9:38 pm
For anyone interested in this subject, please explore the website for the Fermilab National Accelerator in Batavia, Illinois:
http://www.fnal.gov/

I wonder if the Fermilab IT people will be mystified by the sudden burst of traffic to their site?

Paul Loock
August 24, 2010 12:04 am

Does anyone know how big the measured effects really are? It could be important to know before speculations grow too much.

Michael Wassil
August 24, 2010 12:15 am

Alexander Feht says:
This is the clue.
Radioactive decay is constant.
Time (for the observers) changes, depending on their distance to the massive source of gravity. Gravity is a curvature not only of the space but also of the time, remember?
P.P.S. The Hubble’s “red shift” is of the same origin, in my opinion…

Good guess. How would we test that? I’m NOT laughing.