Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

[Karlis]

The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics. Experimental error and environmental conditions have all been ruled out -- the decay rates are changing throughout the year in a predictable pattern.

Read more...

[ninjadude]

the researchers say that it's a wild idea: "'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.'" Could it possibly be true? I consulted with Gregory Sullivan, professor and associate chair of physics at the University of Maryland who formerly did some of his neutrino research at the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan, and with physicist Eric Adelberger of the University of Washington.

"My gut reaction is one of skepticism," Sullivan told DISCOVER. The idea isn't impossible, he says, but you can't accept a solution as radical as the new study's with just the small data set the researchers have. "Data is data. That's the final arbiter. But the more one has to bend [well-establish physics], the evidence has to be that much more scrutinized."

Among the reasons Sullivan cited for his skepticism after reading the papers:

• Many of the tiny variations that the study authors saw in radioactive decay rates came from labs like Brookhaven National Lab—the researchers didn't take the readings themselves. And, Sullivan says, some are multiple decades old. In their paper, Fischbach's team takes care to try to rule out variations in the equipment or environmental conditions that could have caused the weird changes they saw in decay rates. But, Sullivan says, "they're people 30 years later [studying] equipment they weren't running. I don't think they rule it out."
• The Purdue-Stanford team cites an example of a 2006 solar flare, saying that they saw a dip in decay rates in a manganese isotope before the occurrence that lasted until after it was gone. Sullivan, however, says he isn't convinced this is experimentally significant, and anyway it doesn't make sense: Solar neutrinos emanate from the interior of the sun—not the surface, where flares emerge. Moreover, he says, other solar events like x-ray flares didn't have the same effect.
• If it were true, the idea would represent a huge jump in neutrino physics. At the Super-Kamiokande detector, Sullivan says only about 10 neutrinos per day appeared to interact with the 20 kilotons of water. Sullivan says the Purdue-Stanford team is proposing that neutrinos are powerfully interacting with matter in a way that has never before been observed. "They're looking for something with a very much larger effect than the force of neutrinos, but that doesn't show up any other way," he says.

source

Edited August 27, 2010 by ninjadude

[NatureBoff]

source

Superb article!

Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating.

I've known for years that the carbon dating timescale is skewed. At last! A new physics is emerging. The datings of ice age phenomena gets increasing awry with age beyond 10,000 years or so. At last!

[Davedini]

Wow that was actually very interesting

[-MiDAS-]

It's simple, we need to appease Ra, or suffer death by newneutrino.

But seriously, I want this to mean that the pyramids are 10,000 years old or more.... wait what were they again?

[the rebirth]

goes to show how little we really know...

[NatureBoff]

goes to show how little we really know...

Or that we know alot but that the big picture is just slightly skewed. Nice to get a clearcut image of reality once and for all..

[ShadowSot]

Hm... the decay rates change as time goes on, however the calibrations as they were still would stand.

So things like carbon dating are still in place.

[IamsSon]

Hm... the decay rates change as time goes on, however the calibrations as they were still would stand.

So things like carbon dating are still in place.

Not unless we can determine how often this has happened, for how long each duration was, and what the impact was.

[danielost]

Or that we know alot but that the big picture is just slightly skewed. Nice to get a clearcut image of reality once and for all..

that is what someone probable said when they figuared out how to do carbin dating itself.

[ShadowSot]

Not unless we can determine how often this has happened, for how long each duration was, and what the impact was.

Carbon - 14 dating has been calibrated by other dating methods that do not require radiometric dating, like dendrochronology.

As far as it goes, though, the average decay rates per year will still stay unchanged.

[IamsSon]

Carbon - 14 dating has been calibrated by other dating methods that do not require radiometric dating, like dendrochronology.

As far as it goes, though, the average decay rates per year will still stay unchanged.

That can't takes us back millions of years though.

[ShadowSot]

That can't takes us back millions of years though.

Nope, which is why multiple types of dating are used, including radiometric dating.

In this instance, the article puts forth the supposition that there may be a variation in the decay, however, the actual variation is not that great, not even outside the already given range of time.

[IamsSon]

Nope, which is why multiple types of dating are used, including radiometric dating.

In this instance, the article puts forth the supposition that there may be a variation in the decay, however, the actual variation is not that great, not even outside the already given range of time.

The thing is, these variations put into doubt what we think we know about radiometric dating. If something is causing variations right now, it means similar events may have occurred in the past, events of greater or lesser impact. Until we can ascertain if and when similar events occurred, we can't know whether any of our calculations are correct.

[NatureBoff]

The thing is, these variations put into doubt what we think we know about radiometric dating. If something is causing variations right now, it means similar events may have occurred in the past, events of greater or lesser impact. Until we can ascertain if and when similar events occurred, we can't know whether any of our calculations are correct.

Agreed. The big thing other than just carbon dating is an entirely new picture of physics though Where Cosmology and Particle Physics Meet

If neutrinos and antineutrinos are the same particle, when an ordinary neutrino (blue) collides with a Higgs boson, it transforms into a short-lived, very massive antineutrino (red), which soon converts back to an ordinary neutrino. This so-called seesaw mechanism may mean that neutrinos and antineutrinos are the ultimate source of all matter in the universe.

Here's a good Discover article on the latest findings Scientist Smackdown: Are Solar Neutrinos Messing With Matter?

The sun is breaking the known rules of physics—so said headlines that made the rounds of the Web this week.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Smugfish

[3.0]

The issue of properly dating objects for archaeology is interesting; but no mention is made in the article, about how large of a difference this discovery would make. The really important aspect of this discovery is future applications of this discovery. Imagine if we could control the decay rates of radioactive materials! No more radioactive waste buried caves, just bombard it properly with neutrinos, to render it safe!

[ThePitOfReason]

Well it sounds like Carbon-14 dating is now old school and not going to stand up anymore. If it can speed up and slow down depending on the season then who knows for sure how old anything is. How would you be able to tell? from reading this it would be wrong to say for sure until they figure this flaw out. Things could be much older than thought but depending on the seasons they could be much younger.

[ShadowSot]

Well it sounds like Carbon-14 dating is now old school and not going to stand up anymore. If it can speed up and slow down depending on the season then who knows for sure how old anything is. How would you be able to tell? from reading this it would be wrong to say for sure until they figure this flaw out. Things could be much older than thought but depending on the seasons they could be much younger.

Carbon dating gets recalibrate constantly, and is compared against mutliple other forms of dating, like dendrochronology and geostratic chronology.

The problem is, they don't state explicitly in the article what the affected percentage is, from the one source that mentioned numbers, the figures didn't break from the background of the normal variance on readings, making it basically a non issue.

So far, they've not made an effort to show how it really is anything more than choosing results that fit the idea instead of the other way around. A variance has been known, which is why averages are taken yearly and the dating methods are recalibrated often.