Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Is the Sun a giant time bender, or is carbon dating a big lie?   (news.stanford.edu ) divider line
    More: Interesting, carbon dating, solar flares, Brookhaven National Laboratory, genetic linkage, professor emeritus, elliptic orbit, nuclear engineerings, radioactive isotopes  
•       •       •

8165 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Aug 2010 at 10:53 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2010-08-24 10:35:54 AM  
Do you drive to work, or do you order out for lunch?
 
2010-08-24 10:39:18 AM  
So neutrinos interact noticeably with matter in this case, which is interesting. This obviously means evolution is a lie, and the Earth is at most 6,000 years old.

/Pre-emptive derp.
 
2010-08-24 10:44:47 AM  

St_Francis_P: So neutrinos interact noticeably with matter in this case, which is interesting. This obviously means evolution is a lie, and the Earth is at most 6,000 years old.

/Pre-emptive derp.


You forgot - this also means that Sarah Palin is now president.
 
2010-08-24 10:50:02 AM  

St_Francis_P: So neutrinos interact noticeably with matter in this case, which is interesting. This obviously means evolution is a lie, and the Earth is at most 6,000 years old.

/Pre-emptive derp.


What about this phrase: "'But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.'" Who are these "solar people"? Do they come in peace?
 
2010-08-24 10:59:06 AM  

IndyMBA: Who are these "solar people"? Do they come in peace?


They live at the center of the sun, and are in league with the people who live at the center of the Earth.
 
2010-08-24 11:01:19 AM  
REPEL B***TS
 
2010-08-24 11:01:38 AM  

St_Francis_P: They live at the center of the sun, and are in league with the people who live at the center of the Earth.

Hisssssss.

You are the first that we flay, and the last whose innards we feast upon.
 
2010-08-24 11:01:49 AM  

St_Francis_P: IndyMBA: Who are these "solar people"? Do they come in peace?

They live at the center of the sun, and are in league with the people who live at the center of the Earth.


Well, we all know that basements are cooler, so this makes a lot of sense.
 
2010-08-24 11:04:05 AM  
Fascinating.

/Data voice
 
2010-08-24 11:04:13 AM  
If this is true, it certainly farks up physics and radiochemistry a good bit.
 
2010-08-24 11:04:35 AM  
Heh - my one and only greenlight (~like a year ago) was the arXiv preprint on this research...The bit about the core of the sun rotating slightly more slowly than the surface is new, and pretty neat too...
Interesting stuff... cheers
 
2010-08-24 11:05:27 AM  
IndyMBA: Who are these "solar people"? Do they come in peace?

i.realone.com

/Does not come in peace...
 
2010-08-24 11:06:07 AM  

St_Francis_P: They live at the center of the sun, and are in league with the people who live at the center of the Earth.


It's always those damn crab people...they're in league with the reverse vampires and the Illuminati. A bunch of sots, the entire lot of them. /bad.conspiracy.theory

I meant to put this at the end of my other post. Wouldn't the seasonality and/or cyclical nature of the rate of decay (faster at some periods and slower at others) cancel each other out to create a constant over time, i.e. not have an impact on carbon dating? I will grant that I am not a particle physicist and could definitely be wrong.
 
2010-08-24 11:09:08 AM  
SUNBURN ALL HUMANS!

www.geekscribe.com
 
2010-08-24 11:10:12 AM  
all in the quest to find a truly random number.
 
2010-08-24 11:10:54 AM  
First things first, get more confirmations from other labs. See if these observed cycles can be observed consistently by other teams.

I know they'd love to be able to do something involving neutrino emissions and prove once and for all the existence of neutrinos. These little slippery bastards are the result of making the math work elsewhere in the fusion equations, so it would be especially good to make sure your observation is real before you draw conclusions from it.
 
2010-08-24 11:11:09 AM  

St_Francis_P: IndyMBA: Who are these "solar people"? Do they come in peace?

They live at the center of the sun, and are in league with the people who live at the center of the Earth.


Crab People?
3.bp.blogspot.com

/yes, i am a horrible person
 
2010-08-24 11:11:25 AM  

St_Francis_P: So neutrinos interact noticeably with matter in this case, which is interesting. This obviously means evolution is a lie, and the Earth is at most 6,000 years old.

/Pre-emptive derp.


i224.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-24 11:11:30 AM  
It sounds to me like these "radioactive isotopes" are psychic. Therefore they are of the Devil. Or something. Yeah. I call withcraft.
 
2010-08-24 11:11:56 AM  

IndyMBA: I will grant that I am not a particle physicist and could definitely be wrong.


Some isotopes have half-lives under a second. Some over a billion years.

Now, if there is a particle or particles flying around that causes decay (the two isotopes in the article decay by two different means), and the flux/es of that particle is/are not constant, that makes a lot of assumptions, well, wrong.
 
2010-08-24 11:13:00 AM  
I'm a bit fuzzy on why this so horrifying.... Neutrinos interact with the W/Z bosons all the time. The specific reactions here might not have been figured out, but it seems plausible to me.

Of course, it's usually emission of neutrinos and not absorption.... I'm just assuming that the changes in decay rates are tiny yet measurable.
 
2010-08-24 11:17:31 AM  

pandabear: Now, if there is a particle or particles flying around that causes decay (the two isotopes in the article decay by two different means), and the flux/es of that particle is/are not constant, that makes a lot of assumptions, well, wrong.


Well, except that the decay rates likely average over the course of the year and the solar cycle. And assumptions based on that average wouldn't be wrong. All that it would add is a bit of an error bar - and the 11 year solar cycle being an error bar for multi-million year isotope date isn't anything to get one's panties in a wad over.

Incidentally, this reminds me of a joke...
Boy at museum: "Hey, mister, how old is that dinosaur fossil?"
Curator [after mumbling and counting for a minute]: "Six million and four years, three months and 18 days."
Boy: "How do you know so exactly?"
Curator: "Well, back in 2006 when I started here, they said it was six million years old."
 
2010-08-24 11:19:59 AM  

Theaetetus: Incidentally, this reminds me of a joke...
Boy at museum: "Hey, mister, how old is that dinosaur fossil?"
Curator [after mumbling and counting for a minute]: "Six million and four years, three months and 18 days."
Boy: "How do you know so exactly?"
Curator: "Well, back in 2006 when I started here, they said it was six million years old."


Booo
 
2010-08-24 11:21:29 AM  
So the neutrinos interact with the core of the earth, causing massive seismic shifting-- and the process ebbs and flows with solar cycles. The next peak is forecast for november-december 2012. Roland Emmerich is unavailable for comment as he's supervising the construction of survival capsules as we speak. The world financial crisis was just the well-informed folks cashing out to buy tickets.
 
2010-08-24 11:21:53 AM  

vonClogg: I'm a bit fuzzy on why this so horrifying.... Neutrinos interact with the W/Z bosons all the time.


Definitely... I think the point here is that decay half-lives are typically assumed to be constants. That's why various ratios (carbon, aluminum, lead, etc, isotopes) are often used for radiometric dating... I suppose this measurement calls into question how constant these half-lives are really. The effect might be very small here on earth for our particular solar neutrino flux, but I guess conditions could be sufficiently different in other cases to require some treatment of this effect (just guessing)...

and at the very least it's a new and unexpected result (which I think has been verified - i'll look for that preprint I found a year or so ago) which is always nice. Determining the mechanism and modelling it to reproduce the data using QCD or whatever will be a nice little result... cheers
 
2010-08-24 11:23:47 AM  

Theaetetus: Well, except that the decay rates likely average over the course of the year and the solar cycle. And assumptions based on that average wouldn't be wrong. All that it would add is a bit of an error bar - and the 11 year solar cycle being an error bar for multi-million year isotope date isn't anything to get one's panties in a wad over.


That is a much better way of stating what I was trying to say.
 
2010-08-24 11:26:08 AM  

Theaetetus: Well, except that the decay rates likely average over the course of the year and the solar cycle. And assumptions based on that average wouldn't be wrong. All that it would add is a bit of an error bar - and the 11 year solar cycle being an error bar for multi-million year isotope date isn't anything to get one's panties in a wad over.


I'd be concerned about things bigger than the application of decay to radio dating.

We've assumed these rates are constant. These guys have at least some data that says they are not. Einstein, for instance, says that the faster you go, the less frequently an isotope will appear to decay. Now we have evidence that there is something else involved.

Or the guy's counters could have been counting something different and cyclical, but one assumes he had a method to compare his measurement to background and subtract.
 
2010-08-24 11:27:06 AM  

IndyMBA: Theaetetus: Well, except that the decay rates likely average over the course of the year and the solar cycle. And assumptions based on that average wouldn't be wrong. All that it would add is a bit of an error bar - and the 11 year solar cycle being an error bar for multi-million year isotope date isn't anything to get one's panties in a wad over.

That is a much better way of stating what I was trying to say.


As pandabear pointed out, though, while it may not have much effect on carbon dating, it could have an effect on atomic clocks.
 
2010-08-24 11:27:42 AM  
Probably just has something to do with biasing the measuring equipment. For example, measurements of some of the low energy decays in the decay spectrum that were JUST BARELY enough to trip the detector are influenced by a tiny amount of electronic noise introduced in the equipment by disturbances in the magnetic field. A very small effect but...
 
2010-08-24 11:28:08 AM  

pandabear: Einstein, for instance, says that the faster you go, the less frequently an isotope will appear to decay. Now we have evidence that there is something else involved.


But that doesn't invalidate what Einstein said... It may just mean that there are multiple effects going on.
 
2010-08-24 11:28:42 AM  
 
2010-08-24 11:29:17 AM  

vonClogg: Of course, it's usually emission of neutrinos and not absorption


Well, isn't that a big difference? My understanding of neutrinos is that they're so high energy that they usually shoot past most matter without stopping to interact.
 
2010-08-24 11:29:18 AM  

LewDux: Theaetetus: Incidentally, this reminds me of a joke...
Boy at museum: "Hey, mister, how old is that dinosaur fossil?"
Curator [after mumbling and counting for a minute]: "Six million and four years, three months and 18 days."
Boy: "How do you know so exactly?"
Curator: "Well, back in 2006 when I started here, they said it was six million years old."

Booo


...Said the holy ghost. Which reminds me, why do they call it a ghost? Why are ghosts associated with being wrapped up in sheets?Mary is depicted as being wrapped up in sheets. What are these things that go bump in the night? And when you see one, why is it referred to as "giving you the willies?" I'm just sayin' to reconsider the context of the birth of Jeebus Christ. The virgin Mary was a ho!
/derp derp derp
 
2010-08-24 11:32:12 AM  

pandabear: Einstein, for instance, says that the faster you go, the less frequently an isotope will appear to decay.


Well, if the sample is stationary relative to you. If you and the isotope are both accelerating, you won't notice any difference.

wjllope: Neat study done using Cassini's RTGs, which sees no effect... (new window)
Another recent preprint, which also does not confirm... (new window)


Yeah, I think it's probably not going to stand, as a finding. There may be something fiddling with radioisotope decay rates, but the idea that the sun is responsible is setting off my bullshiat detectors. It may have correlated, briefly, but I don't think that there's any causation going on.
 
2010-08-24 11:32:44 AM  

t3knomanser: they're so high energy that they usually shoot past most matter without stopping to interact.


Not high-energy necessarily. Neutrinos from radioactive decays are typically only an MeV or less...
Just very weakly interacting....
 
2010-08-24 11:33:39 AM  

Theaetetus: atomic clocks


That not so much. They work by measuring the frequency of radiation emitted by transition between states. Not be measuring the rate of atomic decay.
 
2010-08-24 11:34:37 AM  
"Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant," Sturrock said...

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.


Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives. ~ Russell Humphreys
 
2010-08-24 11:35:40 AM  

wjllope: The preprint i was remembering... (new window)

Neat study done using Cassini's RTGs, which sees no effect... (new window)
Another recent preprint, which also does not confirm... (new window)

/hmmm


Thanks, wjllope.

Looks like we should hold off on re-writing the physics books. I'm looking forward to the alternative explanation for the anomalous data (unless they give up and just attribute it to random chance).
 
2010-08-24 11:35:57 AM  
"What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

So the sun's been playing us all like puppets on a string for all these years... some sort of superstring, perhaps?

But this is interesting. If its what they think it is, it ought to shake up physics quit a bit right?
 
2010-08-24 11:36:21 AM  
TLDR
 
2010-08-24 11:37:12 AM  
Derp. Hurr de derp. Derp derp derp. ~ Bevets
 
2010-08-24 11:38:19 AM  
I'm going to go out on a huuuuuuuuuge stretch here and guess "no".

Still, a very interesting article. Not nearly well versed enough in neutrino creation to even guess how things like solar flares would have any effect - my guess is they wouldn't given the mention of inner core of the sun, and flares are outer mantle - but this still doesn't change the
 
2010-08-24 11:38:54 AM  
surprise surprise even neutrinos can cause ripples.


/explains why my monthly cycle is 33 days.
 
2010-08-24 11:39:09 AM  

t3knomanser: Well, if the sample is stationary relative to you. If you and the isotope are both accelerating, you won't notice any difference.


You won't notice a difference if it stationary relative to you either. There has to be a difference in velocity between the observer and the sample.
 
2010-08-24 11:40:50 AM  

Thenixon: "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

So the sun's been playing us all like puppets on a string for all these years... some sort of superstring, perhaps?

But this is interesting. If its what they think it is, it ought to shake up physics quit a bit right?


Ugh, no. No strings or super strings.

I do not think this will shake physics up too much. It is a very interesting observation and will lead to more research on neutrinos. The biggest thing to come out of this is the possibility of predicting solar flares. (I assume your idea of shaking physics up is rewriting everything we know about particle physics)
 
2010-08-24 11:41:15 AM  

pandabear: Theaetetus: Well, except that the decay rates likely average over the course of the year and the solar cycle. And assumptions based on that average wouldn't be wrong. All that it would add is a bit of an error bar - and the 11 year solar cycle being an error bar for multi-million year isotope date isn't anything to get one's panties in a wad over.

I'd be concerned about things bigger than the application of decay to radio dating.

We've assumed these rates are constant. These guys have at least some data that says they are not. Einstein, for instance, says that the faster you go, the less frequently an isotope will appear to decay. Now we have evidence that there is something else involved.

Or the guy's counters could have been counting something different and cyclical, but one assumes he had a method to compare his measurement to background and subtract.


I fount this paper by Sturrock, which has a good summary of the decay rate observations:
doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.06.004

If you actually look at the normalized decay rates, the total variation is a fraction of a percent. Obviously some other source of noise would be my first guess too, but they've been doing other analyses to try to correlate it directly with solar neutrinos.

The magnitude of the decay variation is less than the normal error bars for carbon-dating anyway. (See doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.04.007)
 
2010-08-24 11:41:16 AM  

Bevets: ~ Russell Humphreys


Now pull the other one.


Did you run out of valid scientists to misleadingly quote or have you not mined that particular field yet?
 
2010-08-24 11:41:50 AM  
I love all the random anti-Christian derp in this thread, for no apparent reason other than the fact that some of you like jerking yourselves off about it.

Anyways, this is really interesting. I hope that other labs can verify. I don't know a ton about particle physics, but it is always good when we as a species learn something new about the world we live in.
 
2010-08-24 11:45:10 AM  
It's the Higgs Boson traveling back in time to break our equipment!!
 
2010-08-24 11:47:04 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: I fount this paper by Sturrock


Send the URL again. EIP
 
Displayed 50 of 236 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report