Discovery news article: Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

[anomalies]

at Discovery article on mystery particle.

 

Excerpt:

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.

 

I'd like some feedback on this from you. What do you think?

[Schrödinger's hat]

If it were neutrinos wouldn't we see wildly varying rates depending on things like sample size (for neutrino emitters), time of day (the earth absorbs at least a few neutrinos, although I am not sure how this compares to seasonal variation), and proximity to a nuclear reactor?

The news article also makes it look like they based this (rather controversial) finding on a single event.

 

Also I reached a dead end looking for links to the actual papers after here. Rather bad form for Stanford not naming the actual papers. Anyone have a link?

Edit: Some more info:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Edited May 9, 2011 by Schrödinger's hat

[swansont]

There's a very important caveat to this observation, pointed out in the article:

 

If this new finding is proven to be correct

 

Has anyone else replicated the experiments?

[anomalies]

Thanks so much for your responses.

 

Here is additional news I was able to dig up:

 

an article featuring P. Sturrock

 

Some excerpts:

"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...

 

and

 

"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...

 

and

 

"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.

 

"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...

 

and

 

"All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.

 

I also found a list of papers written by Ephraim Fischbach (et al) here:

papers

Edited May 9, 2011 by anomalies

[swansont]

Other popular articles based on the original research and other journal articles by the same author do not count as independent confirmation.

[anomalies]

Other popular articles based on the original research and other journal articles by the same author do not count as independent confirmation.

 

I think you have it wrong.

 

I was not trying to confirm what was said in the article. I wanted opinions on the information in the article. In other words, I was looking for the opinions of posters who knew something about this research. You asked for papers, so I listed a site with papers. Some of those papers seem to be based on the worked noted in the first article that I posted and may or may not have relevancy, but that doesn't matter.

 

Again, I was looking for the opinions of posters who knew something about this research. You obviously are not among them. So far, it doesn't seem as though any of the posters at this forum is familiar with this research. That is what I was looking for. I can remain hopeful that there is a poster or two who knows a bit about it and can give me their educated opinion, right?

 

Thanks for your time.

Edited May 9, 2011 by anomalies

[swansont]

My educated opinion is that a lot of anomalous results turn out to be wrong. That's why the first step is to look for independent confirmation.

[anomalies]

My educated opinion is that a lot of anomalous results turn out to be wrong. That's why the first step is to look for independent confirmation.

 

Yeah, right. By both Perdue and Stanford professors.

 

What do you do for a living?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Yeah, right. By both Perdue and Stanford professors.

 

What do you do for a living?

 

No need to be condescending, Swansot makes a perfectly valid point. It doesn't matter where these people are from, it matters that their results are independently reproducible and hence, verifiable. Otherwise they simply cannot be accepted. As was said, a lot of anomalous results are simply the result of one error or another and, just as anything else, need to be verified. Taking the words of someone as gospel on the basis of who they are and/or where they are based is rather a daft way to develop an understanding of things and is by no means scientific.

Edited May 10, 2011 by hypervalent_iodine

[swansont]

What do you do for a living?

 

I build atomic clocks for the navy. What do you do?

[anomalies]

I build atomic clocks for the navy. What do you do?

 

I'm retired, but I worked in the Computer field for many years. I'm not a scientist.

 

No need to be condescending, Swansot makes a perfectly valid point. It doesn't matter where these people are from, it matters that their results are independently reproducible and hence, verifiable. Otherwise they simply cannot be accepted. As was said, a lot of anomalous results are simply the result of one error or another and, just as anything else, need to be verified. Taking the words of someone as gospel on the basis of who they are and/or where they are based is rather a daft way to develop an understanding of things and is by no means scientific.

 

I apologize if I seemed to be condescending. I just don't think anyone here works in this field.

 

Correct me if I misunderstood. The point you were trying to make is that the Discovery article (and Stanford article), in your and Swansot's opinions, are not valid, because they don't list other experiments? OK. I see your point. Don't articles do that often?

 

As far as the Stanford article goes, it is excerpted above and discourses on measurements taken over a period of time, so it seems they used data that already existed to base their idea upon. Of course, that doesn't mean there are or aren't other 'experiments,' as Swansot put it. I can see this point, but one of the articles is by a Stansford newspaper. That lends more credence to it, as far as I'm concerned. But, of course, it's not proof.

 

In turn, I think I have the right to ask what your background is. The reason I ask that is not to insult you, but because, in my estimation, no one here seems to know anything about this subject so far. Swansot's day job is certainly not in this field. What about you?

 

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I really wanted to converse with those who work in this field or are amateurs who have studied this field extensively.

 

Again, I didn't post the link to the article to start a debate. I just wanted to see if there was anyone here who has a background in this field.

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

 

I apologize if I seemed to be condescending. I just don't think anyone here works in this field.

 

Correct me if I misunderstood. The point you were trying to make is that the Discovery article (and Stanford article), in your and Swansot's opinions, are not valid, because they don't list other experiments? OK. I see your point. Don't articles do that often?

 

As far as the Stanford article goes, it is excerpted above and discourses on measurements taken over a period of time, so it seems they used data that already existed to base their idea upon. Of course, that doesn't mean there are or aren't other 'experiments,' as Swansot put it. I can see this point, but one of the articles is by a Stansford newspaper. That lends more credence to it, as far as I'm concerned. But, of course, it's not proof.

 

In turn, I think I have the right to ask what your background is. The reason I ask that is not to insult you, but because, in my estimation, no one here seems to know anything about this subject so far. Swansot's day job is certainly not in this field. What about you?

 

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I really wanted to converse with those who work in this field or are amateurs who have studied this field extensively.

 

Again, I didn't post the link to the article to start a debate. I just wanted to see if there was anyone here who has a background in this field.

 

 

I'm an organic chemist who works primarily on total synthesis of complex targets as well as synthetic methodology, so this is certainly far from my area of expertise and I honestly couldn't give you an informed opinion on the actual basis of the study. I merely made a point concerning the general validity of scientific experimentation and their respective conclusions, which I am much more familiar with. I think it's important to not let the stigma attached to a name such as Stanford to allow you to form too much bias in the way you accept the conclusions of an article. Of course, the name might lend more 'credence' to their remarks, but it doesn't mean that their results should not be subjected to the same questioning as the same results from another university. That was all I was really trying to say.

 

That's perfectly fair for you to want to engage with people who are experienced in this area and I am not saying that it is in any way a bad thing to desire. My previous comment was more directed based on the assumption that you had intended to be condescending - which is how it came across (to my mind). In any case, you may very well find someone here who does know more about it eventually - and good luck to you on that front.

 

 

[A Tripolation]

Swansot's day job is certainly not in this field. What about you?

 

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I really wanted to converse with those who work in this field or are amateurs who have studied this field extensively.

 

As far as I can tell, Swansont's expertise lies in Atomic Physics. Going by what I'm learning as a physics undergrad, he would be pretty knowledgeable about particle emission just based on association with his current field. When you specialize in an area in physics, you don't just know that one area, you have to learn about the areas that surround your own. One of my professors is an Astrophysicist, and because of this, she is also quite learned in Chemistry and such.

 

It's understandable to want to speak to someone who works directly in this field, but why would you discount Swansont's suggestion of independent confirmation? No offense intended. I'm just curious.

[swansont]

Popular articles are based on press releases and interviews, often prompted by a journal article. They have no standing on their own, as they are not an independent source of information. It doesn't matter how many outlets repeat or repackage the story. One doesn't have to work in the specific field to know this; it's not a phenomenon that's restricted to one area of science. One of the hallmarks of science is repeatability.

 

One would have to have some expertise in order to critique specifics, but the basics of radioactive decay are part of any physics curriculum, and if it makes you feel better, I taught nuclear reactor-related physics for several years when I was on active duty in the navy. The notion that there might be an external influence is worthy of investigation, but there needs to be a mechanism — the upshot of the article seems to be "maybe it's neutrinos" but doesn't go much past that, and if that's the case (or it's some heretofore unknown particle) then this is an induced reaction, not decay. That would still require rethinking the issue, but is still not quite the shakeup that's described, unless there is no such thing as spontaneous decay. But then, you'd need evidence of that as well.

 

One needs to note that even the people who are doing this research are saying things like "If the relationship between solar activity and decay rates proves to be true." Even they aren't claiming the effect is real, they are phrasing their results in terms of the need for further study and confirmation.

[anomalies]

I'm an organic chemist who works primarily on total synthesis of complex targets as well as synthetic methodology, so this is certainly far from my area of expertise and I honestly couldn't give you an informed opinion on the actual basis of the study. I merely made a point concerning the general validity of scientific experimentation and their respective conclusions, which I am much more familiar with. I think it's important to not let the stigma attached to a name such as Stanford to allow you to form too much bias in the way you accept the conclusions of an article. Of course, the name might lend more 'credence' to their remarks, but it doesn't mean that their results should not be subjected to the same questioning as the same results from another university. That was all I was really trying to say.

 

That's perfectly fair for you to want to engage with people who are experienced in this area and I am not saying that it is in any way a bad thing to desire. My previous comment was more directed based on the assumption that you had intended to be condescending - which is how it came across (to my mind). In any case, you may very well find someone here who does know more about it eventually - and good luck to you on that front.

Well, thanks for your explanation, hypervalent_iodine. Again, I apologize if I seemed to be condescending. I may have felt rushed since I don't have time to debate points I think we all accept to begin with. I felt as though I was being attacked for something I didn't say (that the article was correct and established the conclusion as being fact). I don't have the time to debate givens.

 

As far as I can tell, Swansont's expertise lies in Atomic Physics. Going by what I'm learning as a physics undergrad, he would be pretty knowledgeable about particle emission just based on association with his current field. When you specialize in an area in physics, you don't just know that one area, you have to learn about the areas that surround your own. One of my professors is an Astrophysicist, and because of this, she is also quite learned in Chemistry and such.

 

It's understandable to want to speak to someone who works directly in this field, but why would you discount Swansont's suggestion of independent confirmation? No offense intended. I'm just curious.

 

Swansot said, "I build atomic clocks for the navy." I don't recall him mentioning his expertise in anything else. Did he? He also did not say he has any experience in this particular field. Physics is a wide open, general field. Specific specialization is needed nowadays. I didn't completely discount him. I just said he didn't meet my criteria for an expert.

 

Popular articles are based on press releases and interviews, often prompted by a journal article. They have no standing on their own, as they are not an independent source of information. It doesn't matter how many outlets repeat or repackage the story. One doesn't have to work in the specific field to know this; it's not a phenomenon that's restricted to one area of science. One of the hallmarks of science is repeatability.

 

One would have to have some expertise in order to critique specifics, but the basics of radioactive decay are part of any physics curriculum, and if it makes you feel better, I taught nuclear reactor-related physics for several years when I was on active duty in the navy. The notion that there might be an external influence is worthy of investigation, but there needs to be a mechanism the upshot of the article seems to be "maybe it's neutrinos" but doesn't go much past that, and if that's the case (or it's some heretofore unknown particle) then this is an induced reaction, not decay. That would still require rethinking the issue, but is still not quite the shakeup that's described, unless there is no such thing as spontaneous decay. But then, you'd need evidence of that as well.

 

One needs to note that even the people who are doing this research are saying things like "If the relationship between solar activity and decay rates proves to be true." Even they aren't claiming the effect is real, they are phrasing their results in terms of the need for further study and confirmation.

 

Well, this explanation of what you had done in your work history makes you probably the most quaified of the bunch, Swansot. Thanks for that.

 

I DO know that an article is meant for general laymen consumption and cannot be used in an argument for the conclusion (if any) made by the article. I am not an idiot. That is the reason I posted it here, asking if there was anyone who knew anything about this.

 

I think I'm through here for a while. All I have gotten is meaningless arguments for something I never claimed.

 

Thanks to everyone who responded. It's too bad my question was never answered.

Edited May 10, 2011 by anomalies