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
david
August 24, 2010 12:18 am

Frank Lee MeiDere
You are right about our intentions. A discovery that can tie the sun to nuclear decay on earth, also implies that the sun can have other, as of yet, little understood effects. To me that is very exciting, and it is simply a beautiful discovery. However, anyone claiming that the sun can have a direct impact on earth, unfortunately, also might step on the toes of warmist.
Thanks again! Just a bit cynical here.

August 24, 2010 12:21 am

You would think the overall decay rate of 14C would remain, just that perhaps there is a fluctuation up and down at the detail level. Over the Holocene 14C & 10Be agree with each other which is also backed up by the planet positions, so Briffa’s timing should be good.
But if it can be shown that the Sun’s core spins slower and its speed varies over time then we would have something….especially if that change coincided with solar slowdowns.

Konrad
August 24, 2010 12:29 am

Alexander Feht says: August 23, 2010 at 10:47 pm
“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.”
I would have to agree with Alexander. If you need to invent “Dark Matter” to hold a theory together it’s probably time to start looking at the possibility of a rice bubbles universe. Snap, crackle and pop. Like what Einstein said first, before consensus came into play.
Similarly if you need to invent a water vapor feedback effect to hold your climate theory together…

John Whitman
August 24, 2010 12:36 am

Thoughts:
1) The observed variation in decay rates (found via trying to obtain random #s from radioactive isotopes) needs broad confirmation by replications and some alternate approach confirmations.
2) The observed variation in decay rates is on a ~33 day recurring pattern. Rotation of sun was suggested as the possible cause, however, the sun is not currently known to have that period of rotation. Perhaps more knowledge of sun could show parts of sun rotate at ~33 days. However, rotation is not the only process in nature that can cause recurring patterns. Recurring patterns can also be caused by pulsing due to feedbacks. Also, modes of vibration/pressure fluctuations can take on harmonic aspects. Locking into sun rotation is early days, perhaps.
3) The variance in isotopic decay rates has been observed for only a very short time. Does it vary on longer timescales at higher amplitudes than the ~33 day recurring pattern? Does longer term variation yield a more fruitful path to show the physical mechanism that causes the variation?
4) There is a lot of appeal to me in this article of the pure enjoyment of pursuing knowledge for its own sake. I can really just forget climate here. Forget how to apply this knowledge to benefit. I can just enjoy the thing that is nature and our human ability to delve in her wonderful depths.
John

Flane
August 24, 2010 12:41 am

What are the decay profiles for RTG powered probes leaving the Solar System?

tallbloke
August 24, 2010 12:42 am

“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.”
I’d be interested to know what explanation mainstream solar physicists might put forward as to how a more slowly spinning core could maintain faster spinning outer layers.
What physical mechanism could account for this?
Leif? Anyone?

anna v
August 24, 2010 12:42 am

Well, if you want this particle physicist’s opinion, assuming that the effect is real, it is a space time and gravity effect.
Neutrinos interact very weakly with matter in general and certainly could not affect decay rates.
The “decay rates are constant” is dependent on the assumption “space time is constant” i.e. gravity does not change. The same with the velocity of light, we call it constant, except it is so only where space time is stable. It is affected by the geometry of gravity.
If the effect is real, it might be the first proof of gravitons, and in this sense the professor is right, except that the particles are not unknown but expected.
Scenario: the nonuniform rotation of the inner sun core creates gravitational fields that radiate gravitons and induce flares because of compressions and relaxations of the plasma. Gravitons affect the decay rates where they pass ( atoms at earth bobbing up and down with the distortion of space time).
An independent confirmation of such a scenario would be the measuring of the velocity of light on earth for a few sun rotations.
I am good at guesses:) or what?.

Roger Knights
August 24, 2010 12:46 am

Spooky action at a distance.

anna v
August 24, 2010 12:49 am

tallbloke says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:42 am

“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.”
I’d be interested to know what explanation mainstream solar physicists might put forward as to how a more slowly spinning core could maintain faster spinning outer layers.
What physical mechanism could account for this?
Leif? Anyone?

Angular momentum conservation?

alex
August 24, 2010 12:51 am

Interesting and rather unexpected as everything big in science.
Most probably, it is their Geiger counters that are influenced by the sun, not the isotopes.
However, if this is not the case… Others must repeat the experiment with different diagnostics.

phlogiston
August 24, 2010 12:52 am

[moderator – here is a new version with spelling mistakes corrected – thanks!]
Dr. Dave says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:17 pm
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.
I believe that cesium clocks use the crystalline vibrations of cesium, not its radioactive decay, as the time signal.
This is fascinating indeed, perhaps one of the biggest challenges to physics if proved true. It could turn out to be a boring artifact e.g. solar magnetism affecting electric power as suggested by ZZZ (although I think this unlikely, radioactive decay is in discreet disintegrations and represents a digital signal, it seems improbable that small electric power variations could affect this in high precision instruments – as they might affect an analog signal – especially as such instruments often run on smoothed UPS power supply). If it is real, it is huge.
Some modes of radioactive decay e.g. beta are accompanied by neutrino emission. But others not. It would be interesting to see if all decay modes respond in the same way.
Alexander Feht’s suggestion of a time change doe to solar distance and gravity is interesting, it would explain the correlation with the earth elliptical orbit but not the response to solar 33 day rotation or to solar flares of a few days duration – if these observations are confirmed.

Roger Knights
August 24, 2010 12:57 am

a jones says:
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.

Another idea would be to fire neutrinos, etc. at the detectors and see if they are affected.

AJB
August 24, 2010 1:05 am

“The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.”
I guess the first thing to do is work out if it varies by location on Earth, or is everything moving so fast there would be no detectable difference?
Fascinating, thank you Anthony and Leif. More solar articles please!

Phil M2.
August 24, 2010 1:14 am

Why does it have to be the sun affecting the elements on earth. Why not that they are both being affected by variations in the birkland currents. Why assume that our sun is important at all.

son of mulder
August 24, 2010 1:20 am

“” Alexander Feht says:
“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?””
I think this is a red herring. Under both special and general relativity the time measured by local clocks of a local physical process would not change vs the relativistic change of the local physical process they were measuring so you wouldn’t perceive the relativistic change in decay rate.
Like measuring the contraction in the Michelson-Morley experiment. If you are using a ruler sitting with the rod both the ruler and the rod would shrink so you’d perceive no change in the rod’s length.
We should have put the experiment on Voyager. Now who didn’t think of that?(;>)

NS
August 24, 2010 1:21 am

Interesting but badly written this seems to make no sense:
“…noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.”
And this is an un-substantiated conclusion:
“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. ”
There also seems to be at least 3 variables:
Earth seasons
Solar flares
Solar rotation
But very interesting, we know so little, so much left to discover. Will read more about this.

stumpy
August 24, 2010 1:25 am

Doesnt this mean that carbon dating can be thrown out the window as we dont know solar activity for the past? Doesnt this call carbon dated Paleo data into question, or at least the accuracy of the calculated dates?

Yarmy
August 24, 2010 1:30 am

Older article here:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108
Fischbach’s erstwhile claim of a 5th fundamental force sets alarm bells ringing for me.

Alan the Brit
August 24, 2010 1:40 am

Preposterous ridiculous poppycock! Are these quacks & charlatans seriously suggesting that there is something about the Sun that we actually do not understand, & that such a most unlikely (95% confidence) discovery, could potentially affect things here on good old Earth? Surely not! Must go, the awfully nice lady in the white coat says it’s time for my medication.

August 24, 2010 1:51 am

I had to look to see if this was an April fool. Assuming it isn’t this is incredible stuff.
This appears to be the first evidence that the rate of decay can be affected by the “environment”. And it is more puzzling that the rate appears to drop during a flare because on the surface this implies that the presence of something is preventing decay!!!!!!
More likely there is a decrease in something during the flare which normally stimulates decay – but this is starting to sound a bit like laser physics, but for particles and not photons!!! Wow! Does this mean we might one day see a paser (particle amplification by stimulated emission R???)

Gnomish
August 24, 2010 2:07 am

tides?

meemoe_uk
August 24, 2010 2:14 am

Very interesting. Very epic consequences. So how much of the decay formally known as random is in fact dependant on outside interaction? A tiny bit, or are all decays a result of a neutrino capture, from a solar neutrino wind that is near constant?
This would explain the ‘case of the missing neutrinos’ problem, scientists were looking in the wrong place for them.
Anyone got counter arguements for this paper yet?
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf
“Nobody had a stake in the outcome. Nobody was even looking for this outcome. And if true, it could be a huge breakthrough on a number of levels. ”
Seiko and Sekonda could be attempting to take out the atomic clock manufacturers, by claiming all atomic clocks are invalidated by this discovery, therefore improving the market for quartz vibration watches.

Gnomish
August 24, 2010 2:16 am

There can be other things we don’t know, like what happens with matter at extremely high pressures. It may ahave crystalline phases even though it’s extremely hot. It might be a slushy ball in the middle instead of splashy liquid.

Dave Springer
August 24, 2010 2:26 am

Frank Lee MeiDere says:
August 23, 2010 at 9:16 pm
Okay, maybe I’m naive, but I’m not seeing the reason for dismissing this. Nobody had a stake in the outcome. Nobody was even looking for this outcome. And if true, it could be a huge breakthrough on a number of levels.

Yes, you are being naive. Young Earth Creationists were looking for this and have a big stake in the outcome. It’s dismissed by most scientists out-of-hand simply because of the religious implications. Constancy of physical constants in all times in all places is axiomatic in physics. Experimentally we’ve only measured them in one remote corner of the cosmos during one brief moment in history.
This isn’t a new discovery. The seasonal variation in measured decay rates has been known about for quite some time. Even more interesting is that the radio thermal generators (RTGs) in the Voyager spacecraft (which are exiting the outer bounds of the solar system after travelling for decades) are not performing as expected and no one knows why. Either the thermocouples which produce electricity from heat in the RTGs are performing outside the well-tested envelope or the radioactive core that produces the heat is not decaying at the expected rate. The only difference between the RTGs on Voyager I and II and other RTGs is that the Voyager RTGs are much farther from the sun than any of the others.
If the physical constants in nature aren’t really constant then the widely accepted history of the universe gets the legs pulled out from under it.
I’m an agnostic so I have no stake in this either way although on a personal note I wouldn’t at all mind seeing the smug atheist elite in the sciences get egg on their faces in the hope that it might restore some badly needed humility and realization that they don’t have all the answers. Hubris is rampant in academia and from my POV it’s self-proclaimed and largely undeserved.

Kilted Mushroom
August 24, 2010 2:34 am

Being a dummy in regard to science I have learned one thing from this post. I was wrong to believe that the centre of a spinning ball/disc rotates slower than the extremity.
I was also wrong some years ago when I believed carbon dating was accurate, until they changed the method, or isotope, they used for something better. What a waste becoming interested so late in life.