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.

George E. Smith says:
August 24, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Pretty weird though if a neutrino can go through the whole earth without hitting anything important; that it can cause a nuclear event is crazy; well at least often enough to be observable.
Well it may be that neutrinos do interact more with matter than supposed, but not in a significant lasting way unless the matter is already primed.
A bit like how rain is felt much more when you’re dry, than when you’re wet.
“”” Feet2theFire says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:51 am
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…
I hate to inform this author, Dan Stober, but Carbon 14′s half-life has LONG been known to not be constant. The period from 32,000-40,000 BP is especially problematic, in that they have trouble dating artifacts in that period. It is not known for sure why, but some suspect a nearby supernova flooded the Earth with high energy particles that screwed with the atmospheric Nitrogen-to-Carbon transformation process. “””
Hold it there pardner; you just jumped into a cholla cactus bush there.
The 14 C radiocarbon dating system depends(ed) on tow things. #1 the known constant half life of 14C beta decay (5770 yr) and #2 the (previously) assumed cosntant rate of production of 14C from Nitrogen in the atmosphere.
Until maybe now, the half life of 14C has NOT been shown to be non constant; but it is well klnown that the production rate of 14C is quite non-constant; and the dating uncertainties stem for the variable rate of production; and NOT on a variable rate of decay.
The problem was resolved for some periods of time (unfortunately relatively recent) by dating the individual tree rings from Bristlecone pines taken from the White Mountains of California; but they only go back about 5000 years.
Since the rings can be counted to get an exact age, and then each rign RC dated, the time scale can and was for that period linearized.
A significant result of that correction was to revise the history of technology in Southern Europe and the Middle East.
Prior to correction pottery kiln residues and shards obtained from mesopotamia and places in Spain indicated that a particular pottery technology had migrated from the middle east up into Spain.
After the RC time scale had been corrected it was found that indeed it was the Spanish artifacts that were the oldest; and the direction of the Technology had gone the other way from lower Europe into the Middle East.
So it is the generally unknown and vartiable rate of 14C generation in the atmosphere that is the cause of the discrepancies; not changes in the half life of 14C.
And yes I would think that 40,000 to 32,000 years ago would be way beyond the reach of any plant correction strategy. I’m told that there are Creosote bushes that may be 20,000 years old; but I don’t know how you independently date those.
And I’m not up on other dating schemes for ancient artifacts that old.
As for those claiming cosmic rays or EM fluctuations causing the instruments to go out of calibration, note that the flares are detected a day and a half prior to the flares occurence, so unless you are positing that the Earth’s EM field reacts a day and a half before a CME gets here, that isn’t possible.
The flare evidence really debunks that 2008 paper that tries to pre-debunk this study.
Paul Birch says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:34 am
Dave Springer says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:08 am
““In some cases, such as the fine structure constant (of considerable relevance to radioactive decay), these measurements are extraordinarily precise. Their constancy is very well-established.”
They are only established at this time in history in this corner of the universe. That’s the whole point.”
No, they are established over practically the whole visible universe over practically its entire history. That’s the whole point. The whole edifice hangs together. If there were any inconstancy in them, the very stars and galaxies could not exist as we observe them. Change any one of those “constants” and the knock-on effects change everything.
Paul, please.
How many times has the Hubble ‘constant’ been changed in the last 60 years? Let alone :
“over practically the whole visible universe over practically its entire history”
Did the sky fall as a result? No.
If there is a problem these days, then the Masters of the Universe simply sprinkle some extra ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy’ around like Faerie Dust as required to save the theory from failure. They won’t change the Hubble ‘constant ‘ again, unlesss they really have to
Shakespeare said it best:
Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Assuming the effect is real, I would suggest setting up an experiment with lots of different isotopes to see which ones show the largest changes in decay rate and thus make the best detectors. Aside from any insights that experiment would produce, a good detector could be launched on a couple of probes to see how the effect varies with Earth/Sun distance or whether it depends more on radial position around the sun.
I’m also very curious about how the magnitude of this effect would’ve been different in the early solar system (with a faint sun) and how that might have affected our radioactive-decay based estimates of age. I doubt the changes would be large, however, because these estimates are based on isotopes with very long half-lives , which by definition are almost stable, and since stable isotopes don’t decay at all they definitely aren’t affected by the sun.
tallbloke says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:42 am
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?
No explanation, but a boatload of galaxy differential rotation diagrams show the very same distribution of speed.
The core of spirals are found to rotate slower, pick up speed as the outer core/spiral arm boundary is reached, then proceed to run at the highest rotation rate until the end of the arms provide no more redshift data observational opportunities.
And now, one is right back to the enigma of the very thing that dark matter was proposed to explain.
Welcome to the secrets of the universe we don’t understand….yet.
From the neutrino side, here is a paper from 2005 that did not find Periodicities in the 8B Solar Neutrino Flux measured by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory”
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/papers/052010.pdf
John M Reynolds
Supposing this effect is real, it is great to see _science_ in
action. We need more of that.
WRT “spooky action at a distance”, when I speak with young
native German speakers, they have no idea there is any such
phrase in their native tongue.
When Bismark united Germany, he pledged that the new
German state would use one particular form of the German
language. Bismark and Einstein used the other form, the one
that was tossed out. Practical knowledge of pre-WWI Bavarian
German seems to have vanished by 1980. So only English-
speaking physicists know the phrase. Very odd.
33-day periodicity can be explained by postulating that there
are 3 or more layers of the sun, and that the layers, or shells,
do not move at the same speed. Or that the layers are not
uniform in mass, or that the layers are not uniform in their
neutron-emission abilities.
For variable mass example, just look a the external weighing
of flywheels on V8 engines. For variable speed and variable
mass rotation with rotational asymmetry, consider the oft-used
planetary gear set with a single planet gear and weighted carrier.
(Look inside the automatic transmission of your car for an
example.)
Another example would be a bottle rocket inside a beach ball.
Or perhaps 2 of equal mass and equal neutrino emissivity.
Does something like the hot spot that is Hawaii exist on the
sun? Perhaps there is something.
vukcevic says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:22 am
Dr. Lurtz says: August 24, 2010 at 9:11 am
Why would a 33 day core rotation affect neutrino production? Is there a bump in the core that sends more neutrinos?
Yes, it has a bump which slowly (at decadal rate) drifts along heliocentric longitude.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
Interesting Vuk, I record the Carrington Longitude of all recurring regions on the Layman’s page. The “bump” as displayed in your link lines up precisely with “region 1” that has been the most active recurring region with the largest spot area’s of SC24 (1035,1040,1045)
As Joe Public…thank you all for airing your thoughts. It’s very kind. It’s a delight for someone such as myself who has been elimated from the discourse all my life to finally get a ring-side seat to this kind of deliberation. I saw earlier someone had complained about airing speculative theorys to the public. I feel the public represents distributed processing and their various skills perhaps relevant. But as a public service, we get to taste the joy of discovery.
vukcevic says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:22 am
Yes, it has a bump which slowly (at decadal rate) drifts along heliocentric longitude.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
Did you do the research behind this graph? If so it would be interesting to see if this stands up over a longer time frame.
A few more articles for your perusal. More are on the way.
(These are all pre-prints of published articles)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4848
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5385 <<< This one addresses many questions, including gravity and time.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
Another interesting article that addresses the carbon issue raised by G. Smith:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3986
Have a nice day.
Regarding some of the discussion of the Big Bang,dark matter, and some some of the other conventionally accepted , but problematic notions of modern physics, I really only “know enough to be dangerous”, so I can’t contribute anything worthwhile myself. I did come across something a few weeks ago that seems, at least potentially, to be quite interesting. I noted it in a comment on the “Tips and Notes” but it didn’t garner any attention. Given that there appears to be a number of folks with specific knowledge in the area posting on this thread I’d be interested in your reaction to this. Here is my T&P comment.
Dave Wendt says:
August 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm
This is not really climate related but it could be a profoundly interesting bit of science if it pans out
http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html
“By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.”
I lack the capacity to adequately analyze how likely this work is to be correct, but I’m kinda rooting for this guy because I’ve always felt the Big Bang Theory was an indication of a fundamental weakness in our supposed “knowledge” of the universe.
“As Joe Public…thank you all for airing your thoughts. It’s very kind. It’s a delight”
Jim Public agrees.
To Yarmy
You wrote of “Fischbach’s erstwhile claim of a fifth fundamental force…”
He wasn’t the only one fooled. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, quite a few papers were written about fifth force experiments. One that I have a print copy of was:
Liu Y.C., Yang X.-S., Zhu H., Zhou W., Wang Q.-S., Zhao Z., Jiang W., Wu C.-Z.,”Testing non-Newtonian gravitation on a 320 m tower”, Physics Letters A., vol. 169, 131-133 (1992).
If the sun affects the rate of radioactive decay, then it must affect the earth core where most of the heat is generated by radioactive decay. If there are long term significant variations, then could there be volcanism changes also? Is it possible that this effect affects the rate of energy flowing from the core to the surface and then out to space?
The russian paper I quoted above does not show the seasonal etc effect claimed for general alpha and beta decays.
The presentation of anomalous rates is of specific isotopes of manganese and silicon etc.
What is the possibility of these isotopes being contaminated by other radiative substances? Beats in two or three or more decays could result in 0.2% of changes, and we are back into “correlation is not causation”.
Dave Wendt says:
August 24, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I checked the link you gave.
It is an interesting solution.
One has to realize that the so called Big Bang theory is just a specific solution of the general relativity equations that has predominated because it fitted most of the astronomical/cosmological observations.
If other solutions of the general relativity equations fit the data better, i.e. explain rotational imbalances without needing a dark mass hypothesis, they will eventually prevail. If they just solve one aspect but a number of other observations contradict the solution, which I am in no position to know, then the Big Bang will prevail by inertia.
rbateman says:
August 24, 2010 at 3:16 pm
“tallbloke says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:42 am
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?”
No explanation, but a boatload of galaxy differential rotation diagrams show the very same distribution of speed.
The core of spirals are found to rotate slower, pick up speed as the outer core/spiral arm boundary is reached, then proceed to run at the highest rotation rate until the end of the arms provide no more redshift data observational opportunities.
And now, one is right back to the enigma of the very thing that dark matter was proposed to explain.
Welcome to the secrets of the universe we don’t understand….yet.
Interesting observation. I have always wondered why, if dark matter is 75% of the universe it is not 75% of the sun’s innards:).
before leaping to a new particle that penetrates the Earth, I’d suspect an old particle modulating something in the Galactic Cosmic Stuff / Rays and that “stuff” then modulates the decay rate. Solar wind blows “out”, so on the dark side you would have less of it in the earths shadow.
Oh, and on modulation with “winter”: Winter in which hemisphere?….
Just saying… if it’s winter in both hemispheres, well, I don’t think it’s orbital…
Alberta Slim,
Thank you for the link to Crawford!
I didn’t know that my intuitive thinking is along the lines already considered by serious astrophysicists. This is encouraging.
Though, actually, it doesn’t take a genius to see that the Big Bang theory is full of worms. How our descendants will laugh at us!
This is old news to both the cold fusion researches that subscribed to Infinite Energy magazine a few years ago, and the creationists. I’m both. We’ve been looking at things that change radio active decay for years.
The moon can influence the decay of some short lived samples. If the moon gets between the sun and some samples the decay rate changes. It does not matter which side on the planet your samples on. It has to be neutrinos.
Vezzoli, G.C.
Radioactive Decay of Po-210 and Co-60 at Two U.S. Observation Stations in
the Path of the Umbra/Penumbra of the Total Eclipse of the Sun of Decem-
ber 4, 2002 in Southern Australia, May/June 2005, 11, Infinite energy 61, p 48.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue61/index.html
The sample size was to small to give much detail and those aware of this effect were not funded to check further. Mentioning an interest variable radioactive decay has gotten university professors dismissed as creationists. That is ‘dismissed’ as in ‘fired’ not just ‘ignored’. Watch your step.
Those working with cold fusion discovered that radiative decay rates can be manipulated by electrolysis in the Gleason process. The active electrode is Zirconium.
Radioactivity Remediation—Cincinnati Group Infinite Energy Magazine Issue 13/14 Double Issue March-June 1997 pp 16-28.
Gleeson, Stan
A Body of Evidence in Support of LENT, 1997, 3, Infinite energy 17, p 52-53.
That can’t be neutrinos. Stan Gleeson past away some years ago unfortunately.
And you thought it was only happening in climatology. Pal Review has tried to shut this work down since the early 90’s.
Pardon me for asking two obvious questions. First, what’s so magical about the sun? Second, if solar nuclear chemistry can influence terrestrial nuclear chemistry rates, could we observe the same effect near a commercial nuclear power plant? If someone gets his hands dirty and does the actual experiment, and if the answer to my second question is yes, then we’re one step closer to upgrading this fascinating hypothesis to a full-fledged theory.