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.

Here is the link to the pdf of the paper “Power spectrum analysis of nuclear decay rates”: http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924
Merrick says:
the atomic clock is based on electronic, not nuclear transitions.
Ah, of course. Silly me.
This is a relativistic effect due to accelerations of our solar system. Time contractions are measurable effects that make it appear there is a cycle to the radioactivity. My best guess. We may never know for sure.
Wow, if the experiments are proved correct when repeated, this could provide support for Miles Mathis theory that Newton’s famous gravitational equation is a compound equation that expresses both the gravitational field and the E/M field, which can be separated mathematically.
Link to paper here:-
http://milesmathis.com/uft.html
Awesome movie from SDO
It is called…Magnetics
Current science somehow is under the impression that molecules have the room to slam together inside the suns core at tremendous pressure without the inclusion of rotation.
The study of rotation does a great many “funky things” that mainline science has yet to look at.
Lots of things are discovered by accident.
So now carbon dating is not as sure thing as was thought?
What we know about global warming, you could write a program and then a paper. What we don’t know, now that would fill several libraries. And shouldn’t we pay attention to the latter, when embarking on the latest ‘eureka, I have found the answer’. We just may not know.
Despite my hypotheses of Sun- Earth electro-magnetic linkage I am sceptic on this particular issue, at least until we know more details.
Radio active decay produces alpha and beta particles and gamma rays.
– Alpha particle consists of protons neutrons usualy bound together into a particle identical to a helium nucleus.
– Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons
– gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation of high frequency.
Alpha and beta are charged particles and both are deflected by the geomagnetic field, which varies with seasons and during strong flares may even change as much as 10% depending on latitude. The effect would be greatest on the alpha particles since they can travel only a few centimetres in the air.
Cesium-137 decays mainly by beta emission, so it is the gamma radiation intensity which is the critical factor in ascertaining stability of its decay.
Peter Sturrock’s interest in a subject may not be a strong signal there is actually anything there.
Aren’t you glad that the science of ‘this’ isn’t settled? (And a few trillion other things?)
Gives one a reason to get up in the morning. I used to get up and look out the window to see what the weather was. I don’t do that now because it’s all ‘settled’ and no fun anymore. It’s ‘bad’ when things get ‘settled’. It takes so much out of life.
It all probably has more to do with the Earth’s ’tilt/orientation’ and ‘gravity’ at the Sun’s Core, then again it might not.
The most interesting idea I see in this is the idea that detection equipment is varying in response to solar activity. but it still begs the question of ‘how?’
This is an effect which can in principle be tested in labs here on Earth.
If the form of connection from the Sun to radioactive materials on Earth is supposed to be the neutrino flux from the core of the Sun, then it should be pretty straightforward to place suitable radioactive materials into a dense neutrino flux generated from a particle accelerator such as those at CERN or Fermilab.
Particle physicists have conducted experiments with neutrino beams for many years and as a result, setting up such experiments is not particularly exotic. The neutrino beams can be switched on and off at will and it should be simple to check the decay rates of a radioactive sample when the beam is on and when it is off.
If this effect is true, then it will raise some very interesting questions relating to quantum mechanics and the behaviour of fundamental particles within the atom.
Off the top of my head, while neutrinos interact very weakly with regular matter, they do interact to some extent – there is the possibility that neutrino scattering occurs from particles within the atomic nucleus which might have the effect of ever-so-slightly exciting those particles and making it easier for them to decay than if they were undisturbed. The implication is that decay rates should be lower where the neutrino flux is lower – ie the further you get from the Sun, in the case of the solar system.
All good exciting fundamental physics.
This is certainly fascinating stuff. Could it be yet another scientific consensus that will turn out to be completely wrong? Only time will tell….
It would be nice to know how large the changes were. They are described as being small, but no figures were given. Most likely the changes are extremely small, and there would be no significant impact on carbon dating – assuming the effect is real.
Of course, these findings are entirely consistent with two well-known laws of science:
1. Everything is a function of everything else.
2. Every constant is a variable.
Chris
I am no physicist but how can the Sun’s core rotate more slowly than the outer layers? The shear forces would seem to be impossibly destructive and/or dissipative. The Sun coalesced from a spinning disc of gas. We see lots of those in space. Does any of them exhibit that kind of backward distribution of rotational speed?
T. C. Upanokov :
August 24, 2010 at 4:33 am
Thanks for the interesting links.
What does a survey of possible ‘particles’, rays, etc flowing form the sun reveal? All particles mind you … even those which might be presumed at first face to have no effect on a sensor element … then, evaluate the effect those have on the sensor element (e.g. Geiger tube, scintillation counter photo detector etc) … these supposed ‘effects’ on radioactive decay may be due to direct affects on the instruments influenced by particles/energy heretofore assumed to have no influence on said instruments …
Perhaps a ‘blind’ experiment is in order; a control and a test case: one with a ‘placebo’ radioactive sample and another same size-same shape active sample … study the ‘readings’ for a couple of periods (33 days) for which the effect is ‘claimed’ …
.
Perhaps the sun has an core with an inner core that rotates with a different speed.
Fascinating! Thought provoking and a wonderful exercise in contemplation for all of us, individually and collectively. There are some really great points, counterpoints and positings going on here.
I do have one question that I, through mall-blindness (I get lost in my keystrokes through the comments sometime) or it’s absence I haven’t seen mentioned. How does the proposed difference between solar surface rotation and core rotation compare with the differences in the Sun’s polar and equatorial rotation rates?
1) Explanations in terms of relativistic time rates won’t work: your clock will slow by the same factor as the radioactive decay.
2) Explanations in terms of environmental effects on instruments won’t work: the measurements are done by counting.
3) Explanations in terms of variations in the cosmic ray background affecting the detectors’ counts could work; but it would be so easy to check for and eliminate such errors that it would be hard to believe this wasn’t done as a matter of course.
4) Explanations in terms of stimulated decay are not outrageous: half lives are only constant in the absence of significant interaction with subatomic particles or other nuclides (nuclear fission is a classic example of stimulated decay, neutrino detectors another). Whether the effect of neutrinos, gravitons, etc., on these radionuclides is quantitatively sufficient is another matter; it would seem unlikely, but for neutrinos at least it would not be hard to test.
5) The Ap. Phys paper did not measure the same decays, so does not actually contradict the original measurements; it is not unreasonable to suppose that the cross-section of the relevant interactions might be very different for different radionuclides, and it would be no coincidence that the effect should be discovered first in those nuclides in which it is strongest.
6) My conclusion: the effect could be real, but probably isn’t.
Are we sure the sun’s inner-most core is spinning? Maybe it is not and the rest is spinning around it like the stars spin around the center of our galaxy or clouds around a hurricane . What causes the spin anyway?
Maybe a teleconnection to this?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2010/08/23/15114086.html
Seems we are running out of helium.
@Dave Springer – You are spot on, in my opinion. We have two flying testbeds of this theory out there right now – Voyager I and II. If this is a particle interaction sourced from the sun, then a basic hypothesis might be that 1/r^2 comes into play here and that the decay rate on the RTGs should be changing at a relatively constant rate.
@Mike Edwards – I agree. This is testable. We already have neutrino detectors set up. Perhaps some experiments attempting to correlate this effect?
That said, I imagine that, if this effect is real and not some instrumentation artifact, then it will probably come down to a field effect from the magnetohydrodynamic nature of the Sun and not particle interaction.
We shall see. This will be fun to watch. If it is an effect that could be harnessed, imagine the nuclear “waste” treatment options that open up? Great stuff.
son of mulder says:
August 24, 2010 at 1:20 am
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?
That’s right, once and for all. So it is no use to bring up that attempt to explanation any more. OK?
Michael Mann is my favourite space cadet and everytime I hear about another UFO being shot down in the MSM I get very ancious!
Anyway, the way i understand it:
The CO2 AGW theory is a ‘default’ theory. The earth was warming (upto about 1995) and as no other candidates could be found, CO2 was given the prize by default as to the cause of the warming. There is very little HARD science to back up their theory and growing mountains of evidence that it is complete horse manure. WHat is growing is a belief that the Sun is some how the cause and the sun is affected by outside influences on it thus causing the cycles. But the TSI of the sun varies by .1 (unsure of the metric…. .1% of TSI?) and pertubations on the earth require a .6 variance of the TSI. So…..what is the link? I did propose half jokingly to Leif that maybe it’s quantum entanglment on a large scale of clumped matter ‘seperated at birth’ but remaining entangled whereby changes in the particle in the sun ergos down here on earth. We agreed(!): the idea was complete nonsense. As is AGW
Don and Jack Morrow: I am OK with the idea of Sun spinning, and even OK with the idea of the Sun’s core spinning at a different rate than the outer layers (it’s a ball of gas, i.e. a fluid, things can move at different speeds in different parts of the fluid). And this would all obey the law of conservation of angular momentum. Which is the school lesson with the spinning skater. But that law means the things closest to the axis spin *faster* not slower. So ‘xactly what is going on?