Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Back in August 2010, WUWT ran an article wherein it was claimed that variations in the sun changed the rate of radioactive decay. This, of course, flew in the face of years and years of experimental evidence, starting with the Curies, that the rate of radioactive decay is constant, unaffected by pressure or temperature or anything else.
However, this claim that the sun could change radioactive decay rates was shortly challenged by a follow-up article at WUWT and then a second follow-up, both of which threw cold water on the idea.
Figure 1. Mass of the universe, by type. SOURCE
So I was interested to stumble across an announcement issued by Purdue University in August 2012, which strongly confirmed the reality of the phenomenon. Purdue has applied for a patent for the use of this effect as a means to supply advance warning of solar flares.
I found this most interesting, however, not because it affords a chance to have warning of another Carrington Event, although that would be great in itself. Instead, I found it interesting for a curious reason involving the mechanism whereby the sun is able to affect the rate of radioactive decay.
The thing I really like about the mechanism, about the way that the sun is able to influence the rate of radioactive decay, is that we don’t have any idea what it is or how it works.
Truly. Nobody has a clue. It was first noticed in 2006, and to date we have no idea how the sun does it. But Purdue says it clearly, repeatably, and demonstrably works. When the sun changes, radioactive substances all over the world change their rate of decay.
There have been years and years of attempts to see if we could artificially change the rate of radioactive decay. Obviously, if you could do that, it would be incredibly useful. But despite experiment after experiment, no one has ever discovered any combination of environmental variables that would change the rate of radioactive decay … until now, or so it seems at this time.
Now, don’t get me wrong here. I don’t think that the sun rules the climate, and I’m not discussing the sun for that reason. I’m not one of the “It’s the sun, stupid” folks. I don’t think any of the forcings rules the climate—not the sun, not CO2, not methane, not volcanoes, none of them.
Instead, I think the earth’s temperature is set by interlocking homeostatic mechanisms. These natural and poorly studied emergent phenomena have laughed off the effects of huge meteor strikes, and long-term vulcanism, and a slow rise in the solar output, and kept the earth within a surprisingly narrow temperature range at all scales, from centuries to millions of years. We think nothing of the fact that next year won’t be much different from this year … and yet that stability, of plus or minus one tenth of a percent in the global average surface air temperature variation over the last century, is actually quite surprising and demands explanation.
So I’m not talking about the sun affecting the climate. I bring up this question of the sun affecting the rate of radioactive decay for one reason—to highlight just how much we don’t know about this marvelous, mysterious infinity that surrounds us. People talk about Trenberth’s famous “missing heat”, where he described one of the many parts of climate science that is poorly understood—energy that he says is incoming but can’t be found or accounted for.
But given that we seem to have misplaced both the dark energy and the dark matter that make up 96% of the mass of the universe … well, when you can’t find hide nor hair of almost everything the universe contains, that kinda makes not finding a few zetajoules in the climate system pale by comparison …
Let me take another example. In 2010 it was discovered that thunderstorms function as huge natural particle accelerators. Who knew? Here’s a description of the mechanism:
… when particularly intense lightning discharges in thunderstorms coincide with high-energy particles coming in from space (cosmic rays), nature provides the right conditions to form a giant particle accelerator above the thunderclouds.
The cosmic rays strip off electrons from air molecules and these electrons are accelerated upwards by the electric field of the lightning discharge. The free electrons and the lightning electric field then make up a natural particle accelerator.
The accelerated electrons then develop into a narrow particle beam which can propagate from the lowest level of the atmosphere (the troposphere), through the middle atmosphere and into near-Earth space, where the energetic electrons are trapped in the Earth’s radiation belt and can eventually cause problems for orbiting satellites.
I loved that last bit. Using a giant particle accelerator to affect a satellite? Good science fiction, but utterly outrageous that it’s actually happening. One way to recognize emergent behavior is that it is not readily predictable from a knowledge of the conditions. I’d say a thunderstorm suddenly forming a giant particle accelerator that can blast a satellite, well, that would definitely qualify as unexpected and not predictable … and here’s another one.
Thunderstorms give off burst of gamma rays. They found out by accident a few years ago when the gamma ray satellite “Fermi” looked at the Earth. Not only that, but the gamma rays in turn give off bursts of antimatter, which get shot off into outer space …
I’ve had no success trying to establish the amount of energy in one of these terrestrial gamma-ray bursts, no clue. But there are about 1,100 of them per day, and although they are short they are very energetic … so how much energy is lost to space that way?
I find both of these phenomena quite interesting in that they appear, at least, to be a way that the world loses energy to space that is not accounted for in the usual budget. Among other things, we’re blasting positrons into space … go figure.
Remember that the tropical thunderstorms are an emergent phenomenon. They are formed and cluster around the hot spots, so they are removing energy directly where it is needed. As a result, although it may not seem like a lot when it is averaged over the surface of the planet, in the area where it is happening it is very significant.
Here’s another way the planet loses energy that’s not in the conventional accounting. Consider lightning. My back of the envelope calculations show that at something like 5 billion joules per strike, it accounts for about 0.2 W/m2 of energy averaged over the earth’s surface. Some of that is released in the form of heat, and some in the form of light … and that’s where it gets interesting, because something like half of that light will be radiated upwards. You can see it clearly from the space station.
Now, very rough calculations I’m sure someone can improve upon, if light is half the lightning energy and heat is the rest, and half the light escapes to space, that’s less than a tenth of a W/m2 … but again, that’s averaged around the globe. The thunderstorms mostly occur in certain areas and certain times where they are needed to cool the surface. And in those areas and times, the loss of energy to space in the form of light could easily reach several watts per square metre.
I bring up all of this stuff because it’s unknown, it’s stuff we barely understand, or not even that much. But it’s hard for me to describe the point I’m trying to get across, so let me give a couple of quotes that may explain it. First, from the famous scientist J. B. S. Haldane:
Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
I find that greatly encouraging. It means there will always be new things to find out. Like the poet Robert Browning said, “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp. Or what’s a meta phor?”
Then we have the famous scientist William Shakespeare, who might have been describing the sun affecting radioactive decay when he has Horatio say: :
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.
I suspect that eventually we’ll figure out just how it is that the sun is able to affect radioactivity, something that we thought could not be affected by anything. Of course, by then there will be some new phenomenon that’s just as mysterious.
And in the meantime, as we discover any new and fascinating thing about the climate, it seems to me that we should “as a stranger give it welcome”.
My point relates to the famous claim by Gro Harland Bruntland, the chief climate cheerleader for the IPCC, who said:
So what is it that is new today? What is new is that doubt has been eliminated. The report of the International Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the Stern report. It is irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. Now it is time to act (Brundtland 2007).
Well … no. Doubt has not been eliminated, nor will it ever be … and that’s great news.
And as for the consensus of more than 97% of scientists, you know, the ones who said that nothing could change the rate of radioactive decay? …
It’s doing about as well as consensus science ever does, meaning it’s right until it’s wrong, and in neither case does it affect the truth on the ground.
My best to all, keep up the questioning,
w.
Based on what was presented, would it not be just as reasonable to assert that the sun does not change the rate of radioactive decay, but that the sun changes the speed of time, so that the rate of decay over time stays constant. I’m not suggesting that idea; I’m only asking if it is not just as logical.
Well, if the rate of decay is affected, i.e. change of quantum forces on the subatomic level, then it also stands to reason that the gravity is affected as well. Any change in quantum forces governing individual atoms would also change their weak force collectively. Meaning the gravitational constant for the planets (solar system) has changed which should be detectable by observing the change in orbital patterns. G = 6.673×10-11 N m2 kg-2 Now that’s a big Fracking deal.
Gene Selkov says:
May 13, 2013 at 11:50 pm
Thanks Gene for the link to Steven Crothers videos. Glad to know I’m not the only one sceptical about evaporating black holes and such.
Vince Causey says:
May 14, 2013 at 8:25 am
As the space traveller moves away, each twin observes the other twins clock ticking slower. So far, both frames are symmetrical. Now imagine the space traveller has reached his destination and stops before turning around.
============
No, I said the traveler in the ship was on an (near) elliptical course with constrant 1G acceleration that returned to earth (and stopped at earth). The direction of the rocket motor would be continually adjusted during flight to maintain the 1G and return for a soft landing on earth. Depending on the shape of the ellipse the ship could appear to stop for an instant at the point of furthest travel, or not. It makes no difference.
Both twins would experience constant 1 g acceleration for the entire time and according to GR it matters not the least if this is due to gravity or acceleration. That was the key insight in Einsteins formulation of GR. And according to SR there is no preferred frame of reference and nothing to establish that the twin in the ship is moving and the twin on earth is standing still. From the twin in the space ships point of view it is the earth that is moving and the ship that is standing still. From the space ships point of view it would be the earth that stops at the point of furthest travel and begins to return to the ship.
So, under this example, there should be no difference in time for either twin, but it is commonly accepted that there will be. That the twin in the ship will age the slowest. Which if true establishes that there is a preferred frame of reference as per the Mach Principle. The frame of reference is established by the net gravitational force of the universe.
Dark energy thus results from the inertia (centrifugal force) of the matter in the universe within a rotating gravitational field. The resulting “dark energy” is not a real force, it is simply the result of the matter in the universe expanding outwards at ever increasing speed as it moves away from the center of the rotation. Like placing marbles on a Lazy Susan and starting it rotating. The marbles will expand outwards from each other at ever increasing speed, exactly as we observe and mistakenly attribute to dark energy.
A bit more on Dark Matter: … models, of course…. simulations show black holes grow faster than their surrounding galaxy …. due to the presence of dark matter.
“…..the standard idea — that a galaxy’s properties and the mass of its central black hole are related because the two grow in parallel — will have to be revised. In our model, the black hole grows much faster than the galaxy. So it could be that the black hole is not regulated at all by the growth of the galaxy. It could be that the galaxy is regulated by the growth of the black hole.”
The astronomers saw two things happen. First, gas and dust in the center of the galaxies condensed to form a tight nuclear disk. Then the disk became unstable, and the gas and dust contracted again, to form an even denser cloud that eventually spawned a super-massive black hole.
The implications for cosmology are far-reaching, Kazantzidis said.
“For example, the standard idea — that a galaxy’s properties and the mass of its central black hole are related because the two grow in parallel — will have to be revised. In our model, the black hole grows much faster than the galaxy. So it could be that the black hole is not regulated at all by the growth of the galaxy. It could be that the galaxy is regulated by the growth of the black hole.”Blockquote>
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/galmerge.htm
Acceleration along a curving path is detectably different from acceleration along a straight path.
Both twins would travel a certain 4-dimensional distance between two spacetime events (a 3 dimensional position + a specific time), and that distance between two events is known as the interval, and the interval between two events is invariant.
The twins travel between the two events, with spatial and temporal components to each journey, the twin who follows the circular trajectory follows a longer spatial trajectory, so if they wind up returning to the same event as the other twin, they necessarily followed a shorter temporal path, and thus experienced less time.
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 15, 2013 at 11:15 am
“anna v says:
May 15, 2013 at 8:31 am
“” … I think Tom Vonk is correct. People should acknowledge their limits of understanding: I can enjoy a symphony orchestra but would be really stupid to assume that I can play an instrument without training or read the symphony’s notes and lead the orchestra.””
anna, this is far below your usual style. I despise this kind of scattergun condemnation you are engaging in. ”
Willis , I am sure I was replying to specific post of Max Hugoson ,
May 15, 2013 at 7:02 am , who is pontificating way out of any reasonable data base of knowledge . I did not want to use the pronoun “you” as too confrontational and used the impersonal “people”.
In this thread there are many answers that are overboard in pontification on things they know little and maybe nothing about, in this sense “people” includes them also from lack of ability to easily start quoting all their statements.
It IS my belief that everybody, Tom Vonk included who did not want to pontificate on string theories, me, who have less of a data base and facility in physics than Tom Vonk, should talk within their data base of knowledge with certainty, and when outside of it should use “imo” to show that there is small certainty in their statements.
This is a general board and I do not want to be confrontational, as I would be in a physics forum, but I do have to stress that physics uses mathematics, with theories that end in Quod Est Demonstratum ( QED) at the end, but does not stop there: it compares the predictions of the theories with the real world data, again using mathematical tools and rejects the theories with a single falsification, even though mathematically they are perfect. If people go around saying that two and two makes five of course the majority will have a strong opinion on this statement, since arithmetic is within most peoples knowledge data base. Physics is not, people have to spend years accumulating this knowledge and it is natural that, as physicists, we react strongly to science fiction scenaria or hand waving criticisms of which there are plenty here.
I think I did post on your article specifically: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/what-we-dont-know/#comment-1305311
Willis, just for you, to see how a physicist thinks even when a bit out of his/her data base or forgotten data base due to age:
In my reply to your post I state “that the probability of a neutrino to interact with a nucleus is 10^-8 smaller than the interaction of a photon “, an estimate I made from coupling constants. I am still,off and on, looking up neutrino cross sections, because I realized after posting that there could be terms that are linear in the coupling constant when the expansion is squared and therefore the difference in the cross section ( the size the nucleus appears to the incoming particle) between electromagnetic and weak would be, as far as the coupling constants go only 10^-4. Why am I bothering since qualitatively the result is the same? Because I want to be accurate, to have accurate data in my data base..
With the mentality of physicists like this you should understand it if we come out grumpy and cross at hand waving physics arguments.
Willis continued:
I have found experimental plots where the cross section for photons is in units of 10^-24cm^2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photon_Cross_Sections.png whereas of neutrinos it is in units of 10^-42 m^2 which makes the difference order of 10^-10 in cms^2, but would still like to understand it in terms of pertubation theory.
Willis
You’re happy to waste electrons bloviating on how all of this sciencey stuff is all too much for my lack of eddication … but you didn’t answer the question either.
Now you are beginning to rant. It seems to me that your pride or something very equivalent was wounded and you become so focused on it that you loose all critical sense and become even unable to read and understand. It certainly comes over like a tantrum with no rational arguments.
No I don’t waste electrons more than you do. But yes, I ll repeat it again.
This “stuff” is obviously too much for you and you’d do yourself a service to either avoid it or to learn something. Like AnnaV said, 3-4 years of studies could give you the basics.
That’s a honest advice. You take it or leave it, it’s not my problem..
If you listened to your brain instead of your emotions, you would have noticed that I did more than only answering some unimportant questions even if I didn’t go down to every detailed explanation.
I asked, simply, for the amount of energy released in an average terrestrial gamma-ray flash.
– For the anihilation it’s 1 MeV/event. For the gamma flash due to utrarelativistic electrons – few dozens of MeV. Say between 10 and 100/flash. This is an answer. Get it ?.
Now it is surely not the case that 1 flash = 1 lightning and there are surely papers allowing to estimate what factor should be used and you could have found them if you knew what to look for.
If you want to understand why and how these things happen and eventually write a post about what we (you) don’t understand, do your homework.
– For the anti matter energy (which you mixed with gamma even if it should be a completely separate count) this depends of course on the specific energy spectrum of a given lightning and it is more difficult. But Fermi gives the count (presumably) per event or lightning. Here too I gave you an aswer.because the Fermi count makes an estimate possible by taking some hypothesis.
Beyond that I am not interested enough to read papers about more details
I will even give you a bonus answer on an interesting question you didn’t ask. The antimatter energy is lower than the gamma ray energy. This is because you have a cut off for pair creation at 1 MeV. So the pair creation can be only done by the tail end of the gamma energy spectrum.
Etc
Curious, not one highly educated folk here has tried to answer how much energy is released by gamma ray flashes. Personally I found that question to be the most interesting part of the post, while I am still trying to understand if some new observation with regard to the Solar influence on radiactive decay was observed.
Anna thinks that people should be upset if anyone says two plus two is five. I disagree. To be upset, instead of a calm explanation of why four is the correct answer, is to to display a profound personal ego attachment to ones own perception of “what I know”. Also, to insult, such as this is far beyond you, so do not even try, just accept, destroys any intrest in learning, at least from that person.
On the other hand, if the person who is stating that five is the answer to the simple question, also wants to change the economy of the entire world, based on that wrong answer, then I understand getting upset with them.
Not sure if I would call myself highly educated, just a college student atm, but several posts, including my own, have mentioned that pair production sets a lower bound, but I assume like myself they aren’t eager to set a hard upper limit because nature likes to laugh at you and prove you wrong when you do that.
Not enough data for me at least to give anything as an upper bound with any sort of confidence.
Oh, and I noticed I slipped in GeV where it should have been MeV, whoops, Protons/Neutrons are ~GeV range, Electrons are only half ~MeV range, derp on my part.
David says:
May 16, 2013 at 3:43 am
“Curious, not one highly educated folk here has tried to answer how much energy is released by gamma ray flashes.”
at least two people have given in energy units the amount of energy of each gamma turning into an electron positron pair and thus contributing to the exaggerated “antimatter beam”http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html . These “beams” are certainly not the main energy loss from electromagnetic radiation to space as extra cross sections are involved , the gamma ray has to find a nucleus to conserve momentum in the pair production and high atmosphere does not have too many of them. . http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html . The main energy will be carried by the gammas to space, the pair production is a detecting method for the existence of these gammas.
Total even energy given here http://vlf.stanford.edu/research/terrestrial-gamma-ray-flashes is of order of 10 kjoule. With 500 or so such events a day on the whole of earth not too much energy per day ( 500kilowatts, if the burst lasts 10 miliseconds ) is lost to space from this phenomenon.
I have to say that all this took a bit of arithmetic after a search on google for terrestrial gamma-ray flashes.
And , David, I did not say people would be upset , I said they would have a strong opinion on arithmetic which they would defend, quietly or not according to their character..
TomVonk says:
May 16, 2013 at 3:38 am
Well, that’s an interesting attempt at attacking me, but that’s not an answer to my question …
Sorry, that’s not an answer either. It’s a guess. Do you not understand the question? What you report is your unsupported guess for the amount of energy released by some unknown amount of ultrarelativistic electrons, which you yourself are unable to limit to within one order of magnitude. You guess, I repeat guess, that it is ten to one hundred MeV… what field do you work in where that would qualify as an answer? You have no data to back that up, you’re just guessing. As my friend TomVonk says … “Get it?”.
I see. You can’t find the answer, and you can’t even find the paper that has the answer, so now you’re telling me to look it up … and you abuse me for asking the question? Who is looking dumb here, when I ask a simple question and get nothing but bafflegab from you?
Did I ask “why and how these things happen”? I don’t remember asking that. You want to pretend my simple request, for an average amount of energy per lightning-induced gamma ray flash, is asking for why and how gamma-ray flashes operate.
Bullshit. I specifically separated the gamma-rays and the antimatter. And I asked for an answer, not a possible route to possible answer if I take some unspecified “hypothesis”. You are just bobbing and weaving because you don’t have an answer.
And I should care why? This last “bonus answer” is just number-free scientese intended to prove you are smart. It may well be true, but so what? You haven’t said why it should make a difference or what your point is.
Sorry, Tom, but that post was nothing but handwaving. You haven’t answered my question in any way, shape or form. Here’s how you can tell.
An answer to the question would have the form “An average terrestrial lightning-induced gamma ray flash has been measured to release X joules in the form of gamma rays”.
Neither you nor Anna nor Max™, despite your protests, have provided anything like that. All any of you have given me is a minimum value, for the one-pair situation … so what? If I were interested in a minimum value I’d have asked for that.
w.
anna v says:
May 16, 2013 at 5:03 am
THANK YOU, ANNA. Gold stars for you, the first one in with the answer.
And dang … why was that so hard? You’d have thought I was asking for an explanation of string theory or something, rather than the results of a freakin’ measurement …
So TomVonk, eat your heart out. Anna answered my question, complete with citation.
You know the question I mean, Tom, the one you couldn’t answer—the question you wanted to abuse me for having the temerity to ask from the depths of what you see as my profound ignorance? Yeah, that question, the one you say I’m supposed to have to study for five years to understand the answer …
Now truly, Tom … was it that difficult? You do understand that the above short paragraph and citation was all I was asking for, and that instead of an answer, all I got from you was alternating insult and handwaving? Get it?
Gotta say, Vonk … you’re a smart guy, but you haven’t done your reputation any favors with your actions here. Heck, even your guesses (10 to 100 MeV, or about 10-11 to 10-13 joules) were about 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the actual answer (10 kJ per event) … and you think I need education?
w.
Willis Eschenbach :
May 16, 2013 at 9:32 am
The event is the whole Terrrestrial gamma-ray flash, whose duration is 10 miliseconds.
The 1 MeV is the necessary mass to create the pair, which is a small part of the positron flux. It is not clear how many positrons appear per flash but the positron flux is a tiny part of the total electromagnetic radiation released as gamma rays in the flash. That is why there is such a large difference in the orders of magnitude.
Anna says…”I have to say that all this took a bit of arithmetic after a search on google for terrestrial gamma-ray flashes.
And , David, I did not say people would be upset , I said they would have a strong opinion on arithmetic which they would defend, quietly or not according to their character..
————————————————————————————————————
Anna, thanks for your posts, and as a lay person I appreciate all the input politely given to polite society in rational discussion. This post by Willis is certainly that, and any and all correction by those with deeper and broader knowledge is appreciated. All Tom V had to say was words to the effect of…”In this subject of physics there are many misconceptions that happen between the press, and those commenting on it, here are some corrections to those misconceptions. Somehow I think that Tom V does not comprehend that this is not what he did at all. (I think it may be the Sheldon Cooper Syndrome) and not intentionally insulting, but to anyone capable of catching a clue, Tom Vs comments were deeply condescending and as unnecessary as they were rude.
At any rate I think that when you say … “they would have a strong opinion on arithmetic which they would defend, quietly or not according to their character” you are reinforcing my point, which is that when anyone is not arrogantly stating a concept, no matter how wrong they are, to react with offended condescension, instead of rational discourse is to display poor character.
All the best
David
yuck, I should have read before posting, forgive the typos… and redo of last paragraph…
At any rate I think that when you say …” they would have a strong opinion on arithmetic which they would defend, quietly or not according to their character” you are reinforcing my point, which is that when anyone is not arrogantly stating a concept, no matter how wrong they are, to react with offended condecension, instead of rational discourse is to display poor character.
[Fixed, I think … including the mis-spelling of “condescension” in the replacement paragraph, I do love having a spell checker, wouldn’t have caught it otherwise. -w.]
“So what is it that is new today? What is new is that scientific doubt has been eliminated with political means. The report of the political established and political driven International Panel on Climate Change is clear. And so is the political Stern report. It is political irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to think and question the political constructed seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis and science is over. Now it is time to act and open the national doors for international marxism(Brundtland 2007).”