Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

Fairwillows

Where I am supposed to be.
http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html

When probing the deepest reaches of the Cosmos or magnifying our understanding of the quantum world, a whole host of mysteries present themselves. This is to be expected when pushing our knowledge of the Universe to the limit.

But what if a well-known -- and apparently constant -- characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?

This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age.

This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: 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.

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.

Carbon-14 has a very defined half-life of 5730 years; i.e. it takes 5,730 years for half of a sample of carbon-14 to radioactively decay into stable nitrogen-14. Through spectroscopic analysis of the ancient organic sample, by finding out what proportion of carbon-14 remains, we can accurately calculate how old it is.

But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin.

Interestingly, researchers at Purdue first noticed something awry when they were using radioactive samples for random number generation. Each decay event occurs randomly (hence the white noise you'd hear from a Geiger counter), so radioactive samples provide a non-biased random number generator.

However, when they compared their measurements with other scientists' work, the values of the published decay rates were not the same. In fact, after further research they found that not only were they not constant, but they'd vary with the seasons. Decay rates would slightly decrease during the summer and increase during the winter.

SLIDE SHOW: Seeing the Sun in a New Light, The First Solar Dynamics Observatory Images

Experimental error and environmental conditions have all been ruled out -- the decay rates are changing throughout the year in a predictable pattern. And there seems to be only one answer.

As the Earth is closer to the sun during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere (our planet's orbit is slightly eccentric, or elongated), could the sun be influencing decay rates?

In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun.

Did the sun somehow communicate with the manganese-54 sample? If it did, something from the sun would have had to travel through the Earth (as the sample was on the far side of our planet from the sun at the time) unhindered.

The sun link was made even stronger when Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, suggested that the Purdue scientists look for other recurring patterns in decay rates. As an expert of the inner workings of the sun, Sturrock had a hunch that solar neutrinos might hold the key to this mystery.

Sure enough, the researchers noticed the decay rates vary repeatedly every 33 days -- a period of time that matches the rotational period of the core of the sun. The solar core is the source of solar neutrinos.

It may all sound rather circumstantial, but these threads of evidence appear to lead to a common source of the radioactive decay rate variation. But there's a huge problem with speculation that solar neutrinos could impact decay rates on Earth: neutrinos aren't supposed to work like that.

Neutrinos, born from the nuclear processes in the core of the sun, are ghostly particles. They can literally pass through the Earth unhindered as they so weakly interact. How could such a quantum welterweight have any measurable impact on radioactive samples in the lab?

In short, nobody knows.

If neutrinos are the culprits, it means we are falling terribly short of understanding the true nature of these subatomic particles. But if (and this is a big if) neutrinos aren't to blame, is the sun generating an as-yet-to-be- discovered particle?

If either case is true, we'll have to go back and re-write those textbooks.

Source: Stanford University
 

willowlady

Veteran Member
Not so surprising, IMO.

All of our astrophysical sciences (geophysical as well) are based on the idea of a constant universe. IMO, the universe changes, things speed up and slow down, the speed of light is not the limit, etc. We are only in the last few years beginning to understand that our pleasantly quiet earth has not always been and will not always be pleasantly quiet. The idea of the cyclic nature of cosmic events was (and still is, in many cases) in "bad odor" with the scientific community until only recently. If you look at the changes in what we "know" about our universe in the last four centuries, then you might get an idea of radically different our future understanding of what we may "know" about the physical reality of our universe. I personally believe that quantum science will bring us many surprises, including things operating "magically" (already finding that out, iirc), and so on. Schrodinger and Heisenberg had some knowledge of what I'm talking about.
 

bobpick

Inactive
Gee... the whole premise behind the 2012 movie is that the neutrinos were fundamentally changed and that is what caused the earth's core/mantle to heat up.


Fiction following fact, or fact following fiction?
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
Gee... the whole premise behind the 2012 movie is that the neutrinos were fundamentally changed and that is what caused the earth's core/mantle to heat up.


Fiction following fact, or fact following fiction?

Neither actually.

I studied chemistry as an undergrad, minored in physics, and did many years of research, my interest and studies was in subatomic pariticles. Most of this information was known 20 or more years ago, it's been an ongoing study. Reading the OP makes me want to dig deeper into this to see if my one major prof is involved in this research as this was the kind of thing he lived for.

Basically in a nut shell we NOW have better less expensive diagnostic equipment to research and observe these sorts of things than say 20 years ago. I remember doing some NMR studies on my particles and it was pretty pricey per run, and then I had to borrow the NMR facilities at another university and the department chair just about fell over when he got the bill... note my prof signed off on it! VBG

So in a nut shell this is akin to the new satellites we have that are studying the sun, at first it's all shock and awe and now it's ho hum.

K-
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
[B]Neutron Repulsion in the Sun's Core [/B]

found this over at iceagenow.com

looks like there's more mystery in the sun that is being acknowledged:

Neutron Repulsion in the Sun's Core

26 Aug 10 - Here's a paper for your Evolution site, it is a gem of info! It could also go on your ice-age site, because it says that "Changes in Earth's climate are linked with highly variable solar magnetic fields."

The fusion of hydrogen atoms – the same mechanism that is at the heart of a Hydrogen Bomb – is generally accepted as the energy source of our Sun. Yet, if this theory were the actual source of the Sun’s energy,

a) Why is the Sun’s emission of neutrinos only about 1/3 the amount expected from fusion reactions ?

b) Why is the ratio of Oxygen atoms to Carbon atoms only 2 at the Sun’s surface, when laboratory and theoretical calculations predict a much higher value ?

c) If fusion powers the Sun, why does it discard 50 trillion tons of Hydrogen each year as "solar wind" trash, with traces of other elements carefully sorted by atomic weight ?

d) How do deep solar magnetic fields sort elements by weight, control Earth's climate, and produce the solar wind, solar flares and gigantic solar eruptions ?

e) How are we to understand the universe when, as Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler noted in 1988, ". . . we do not even understand how our own star really works." [1] ?

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
 
Top