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.

Like a lot of science throughout history…
An interesting observation, whilst ACTUALLY looking at something else…
Raises some questions worth investigating..
Ie they made all the right initial thought, ie check instrumentation, etc..
Might be nothing, could be interesting. no controversy, except amongst the physcics crowd, perhaps
Interesting, to say the least!
BTW, first it ws clouds and now, “All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is “communicating” with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.”
For all you paranoid people out there, the universe is talking behind your back.
I remember reading about the decay-rate change about a year ago. It’s not 2010-new.
Alexander Feht says: August 23, 2010 at 10:43 pm
I think it is a puzzle still. I’m not convinced by your arguments and I doubt that the maths actually stacks up, though it looks plausible.
What I see little mention of, here, is the possible contribution of “fringe” scientific research around the zero point field postulate of Quantum Mechanics, that shows “telecommunications” between human thought and particle behaviour have been shown to exist in scientifically-meticulous, statistically-significant experiments – many experiments too, from many sources, not just a few from one source. In this view of reality, “telecommunication” links are not impossible. And at the very least, if correlation is statistically significant, there must be a cause somewhere.
I was fascinated reading “The Field” which touches all this; but it is, I feel, only a door-opener. My assessment is pretty much at the Amazon three-star level in that respect. However, if anyone thinks they can completely dismiss that beautifully readable book, I’d like to know exactly on what grounds. No doubt it has faults in the details, but to me it passes what Eschenbach calls the commonsense test. The real issue IMHO is that the book upturns the current paradigm of the nature of physical reality – and is not written by a “scientist” and, indeed, the science standards are patchy – but the book opens valid and interesting doors which science papers written in incomprehensible science jargon do not.
The normal ballet dancer effect of increasing rate of spin by pulling in their arms gives the intuitive idea that the centre of the sun ought to be spinning quicker as rotating hydrogen was pulled in under gravity. ie conservation of angular momentum. But what happens when you consider a body undergoing nuclear fusion where the hygrogen becomes the denser helium and higher atoms. This activity is most intense in the core of the sun and as density increases through this action so rotation would slow so as to conserve angular momantum. Just a thought.
Dr. Dave says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:17 pm
(…) 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.
Alexander Feht says:
August 23, 2010 at 10:43 pm
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?
The first tangible proof of the Time Waves?
Regards
I haven’t looked at the originating papers, but I’m just slightly confused that people are confused how neutrinos might have small but noticable effects on nuclear decay rates. That’s actually how we detect neutrinos – by the effect they have on nuclei. But, as I said, I haven’t read the originating papers.
Another slightly confusing apparent contradiction: the article states that decay rates appear to *drop* slightly with the increased neutrino flux associated with a solar flare, but then also states that decay rates were faster in Winter than in Summer. Of course, it doesn’t state which hemisphere it’s referring to, but I assume Northern – and up here the Earth is closer to the sun in Winter (more neutrinos) than in the Summer – so those statements appear to contradict one another.
Have I got something wrong?
Alexander Feht, blaming it on time effects by gravity is an interesting avenue.
There is a group in gravity studies that believe there is a ‘push’ gravity field, which tries to explain what gravity is. A retired geophysics professor first told me about it and directed me to this website:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp
He also proposed an experiment measuring gravity during a solar eclipse, or constantly for 24 hours or longer, as a way to investigate variations in gravity measurements.
I am not qualified to comment on this theory but it was the comment by Alexander that triggered the memory.
Actually, the definition of a second always was relative – both specially and generally – but the atomic clock is based on electronic, not nuclear transitions. So this discovery – if borne out – has no direct impact on atomic clocks. Don’t get the words “atomic” and “nulcear” confused – they don’t mean the same thing.
Neutrinos are fermions and hence acknowledge the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but beyond that they react to little else. This would seem to suggest that neutrino wave-functions are truly enormous in size and that the universe is a ‘Fermi gas’ of neutrinos (similar to electrons in a metal).
A neutron decays to an electron, a proton and a neutrino (add anti- as required), however it could be seen as a neutrino and a neutron having a capture event. From this viewpoint decay rates would depend on the capture cross-section which would vary with neutrino density.
A short follow up to The Time Waves.
They could be detected now reading readouts from, e.g. two, most distant cesium clocks.
Regards
Continuous variable fluxus in the hitherto unknown solar magnetic field line x is
exerting enough gravitational forcing on earth’s radioactive particles so much so that the rate of decay is slowed enough to be measured and happens regularly enough so that a pattern emerges to be visible in the statistical plot.
The crystal crowd will now be able to start their sessions on a more opportune moment to fully get the most of the Sol’s “anti-decaying” “life force” and start getting even “younger” the older they get. :p
This analysis of Solar Neutrino events shows no periodicity in solar neutrino counts at 33 days or any other period less than 1 year.
There is one periodicity at a year because of the Earth’s eccentric orbit around the Sun and can be calculated from the neutrino flux variation – which is done in the paper.
Why didn’t the team check whether solar neutrinos had a 33-day cycle before assigning them as a cause? Baffling.
I just finished reading the essay on the Blazelabs website.
He concludes that his theory can explain an attenuation in radioactivity. Note that this was written before the experiments described here.
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-grp.asp
This is old knowledge – Ralph Juergen wrote about this effect decades ago – it’s the electric field, and it’s magnitude, that determines whether a sub atomic particle escapes from a nucleus.
Go research the links on Plasma Physics at http://www.thunderbolts.info for published data on this. Search for Ralph Juergens specifically!
Since most detectors of nuclear decay events are inherently quantum in nature (i.e., they measure individual events, not an analog current related to a flux of events) it difficult to see how a “calibration” effect on the instruments influenced by the Sun could be at the heart of the matter – assuming their is a robust effect.
Also – how exactly is this supposed to effect Briffa cone data? The rings are dated by counting them, not radioactively.
Very plausible. the universe is mostly about change. All those constant factors in all those equations could just as easily be discontinuous with their average state generally being a constant. Schrodinger and his friends may also be involved. Just another part of the matrix but perhaps with a way to predict the particular observation.
And, depending on one’s theory of how stars form, it’s perfectly sensible a star’s core may slow after attaining a certain angular velocity. It would seem the Sun is far from steady state with it’s rotation undergoing very significant changes if it follows what some say is it’s most probable path. Even entropy may have some input.
And it would seem, for a change, this would be something humans could actually set up confirming observations since, unlike tree rings, flares do happen many times within a human adults lifetime.
In addition: Changes in the Solar electric field magnitude determine the change in radioactive decay of nuclei immersed in that solar field.
The Solar electric field strength itself is dependent on the current density it is being powered by.
But it raises another problem – radiometric dating – and its assumptions that radiometric decay is invariant.
These data show it isn’t.
But that’s science folks, where there are no abosolutes except in human gullibility.
Is it April 1st already?
It can’t be true, where’s the computer modelling?
Modern scientists don’t actually look at data and do real experiments do they?
If there is a 33 day signal coming from the solar core, then it has an inhomogeneity, no matter what the particle or wave involved consists of. This is good news for people looking for a mechanism for a barycentric motion effect on solar activity.
Merrick says:
August 24, 2010 at 3:11 am
Actually, the definition of a second always was relative – both specially and generally – but the atomic clock is based on electronic, not nuclear transitions. So this discovery – if borne out – has no direct impact on atomic clocks. Don’t get the words “atomic” and “nuclear” confused – they don’t mean the same thing.
Thanks. Old fool of me, so much for the Time Waves. 😉
Regards
Data that do not agree with the solar flare correlation for alpha and beta decays:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.2295.pdf
A.G.Parkhomov
Institute for Time Nature Explorations.
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.
http: // http://www.chronos.msu.ru
Results obtained with multichannel installation created for long-term studies of various processes, are collated with the data published by J.H. Jenkins and E.Fischbach, who found a decrease of 54Mn radioactivity near the time of series of solar flares between 5 and 17 December 2006. Analysis of the data from our installation in December 2006 has not revealed any deviations from the usual behaviour of the count rates for 90Sr90Y, 60Co and 239Pu sources. The same can be said of the data collected during the period of highly powerful solar flares between 19 October and 4 November 2003. Apparent drops in the count rate were detected between 10 and 12 May 2002 while registering the activity of 60Co and on 19 and 20 June 2004 for 90Sr-90Y source. Around the time of these events, no observations of large solar flares were reported. Thus, proposed link between the drop in the rates of radioactive decay and appearance of solar flares could not be confirmed. From obtained outcomes follows, that the radioactivity drop effect, if it really exists, is rather rare, and that the reason calling this effect unequally influences various radioactive sources.
Louis
Before you accept the idea of solar neutrino modulation of radioactive decay, first you must check whether solar neutrino emission has a 33-day cycle. As you can see from my previous post, no it doesn’t.
And no-one is in a position to check the data. Try it.
“It’s ALIVE!!!”
The moron detector is off the scale!
A very interesting paper regarding this topic is:
Javorset II, D. et al. (2010). Power spectrum analysis of nuclear decay rates. Astroparticle Physics, 34 (3), 173-178.
Also interesting: the findings of Prof. S. E. Shnoll:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0610/0610137.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0412/0412007.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0602/0602017.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-13-22.PDF