Jump to content


Photo

Radioactive Decay Rates


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#21 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:50 AM

Scroll down to page 7 for a more obvious display of the same data but without the giant red labels of each flare and you can read "The solar flare at ~21:37 EST on 12 December is clearly visible, along with the precursor count-rate decline that precedes it.


Ok I was looking at the 41 hour difference starting from 21h37 EST, but you are correct there was a 40 hour early detection until 21h37 EST as well.
I haven't got muon data from Purdue for that particular 40 hour early warning, it appears that Purdue itself did not produce muon figures over that same period. But muon detection is one of the most favored methods in solar event early warning systems (CMEs) , so there is some logic behind muons relating to early warning drops in decay rates:
http://aragats.am/fi...n/2003/ASEC.pdf
http://neutronm.bart...er/welcome.html
http://www.esa-space...fswald_muon.pdf
"The information about primary ion type and energy is mostly smeared during
its successive interactions with atmospheric nuclei, therefore, only coherent measurements of all
secondary fluxes (neutrons, muons, and electrons), along with their correlations, can help to make
unambiguous forecasts and estimate the energy spectra of the upcoming dangerous flux. "


Your argument requires time travel since solar protons (must travel at less than c) can't arrive before x rays (must travel at c) from the same event

There are other events that occur before a solar flare. Sunspots show a cycle before flaring up. The only way to detect if there is about to be a flare is to analyze the fastest particles that burst out before the solar flare.

About 1/3 of the way down the article it points out what I've already told you. The data used was not gathered by those institutions which means they have no way to check for periodic affects on the equipment. The article also points out that follow up investigations found no evidence to confirm the effect, so the effect is definitely deniable.


Not deniable, subject to corroboration. The article we are discussing gave the studies significant respect, despite the section you are quoting that refers to the need for further corroboration. I agree, further corroboration is needed.


Cosmic rays are basically fast protons, solar wind is slow protons and other light atomic nuclei.

I've bolded a very important sentence that actually contradicts your entire position. I want you to consider the effects of your sentence compared with your claim. Your claim is that muons affect decay rates and that changes in quantities of muons result in changes in decay rates. Now go back to the sentence in bold and please answer this question, is the number of muons that impact/affect a radioactive element on a probe moving away from earth greater than, less than, or equal to the number of muons that impact/affect a radioactive element on earth?

If the number of muons is different then the decay rate on a probe should be different or your claim is wrong (we know the decay rate on the Cassinni probe isn't different).
If the number of muons isn't different then your bolded sentence has some serious problems since there's no atmosphere around the probe


To answer your question, I would say the muon effect is less on a probe, and so decay rates should be less on earth and faster in space, and be consistent once in space no matter what the solar distance (as the Cassini probe confirms).

#22 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 September 2012 - 11:09 AM

http://www.creationr...12%20Oliver.pdf

Just wanted to throw this article in the fray as example of another possible cause of radiometric decay acceleration. Magnetic monopoles escaping the center of the earth during the flood due to magnetic field reversals.


Its a bit too theoretical for me, I prefer actual observations. Generally I like to use information from mainstream sources because to decipher the extent of the bias of creationist sources is too difficult. But who knows, they may have something.

My "muon" hypothesis is easily testable. Its difficult to shield any experiment from the effect of muons, because muons are highly penetrating. Nevertheless its possible to make a muon shield. All one has to do is place a geiger counter next to a particular isotope, recording the decay. Then suddenly shield the isotope from the continuous muon bombardment. Not such an expensive process, because muons are always there bombarding earth , freely available.

If its not muons, then something else is causing these seasonal and solar flare fluctuations as recorded by Purdue University and the Geological Survey of Israel.

#23 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 September 2012 - 01:04 PM

its a bit too theoretical for me also, I just think people might find it interesting. I sure do. Also, I am not sure if it is said to only speed up beta-decay but they seem to put a lot of emphasis on just beta-decay. Either way, it points to different ways to disrupt the decay rates which many people think are unchanging. Reality is, we really haven't got it all figured out enough to claim that they are. We only know what we have observed in the lab in the past century or less.

#24 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:11 PM

Ok I was looking at the 41 hour difference starting from 21h37 EST, but you are correct there was a 40 hour early detection until 21h37 EST as well.
I haven't got muon data from Purdue for that particular 40 hour early warning, it appears that Purdue itself did not produce muon figures over that same period. But muon detection is one of the most favored methods in solar event early warning systems (CMEs) , so there is some logic behind muons relating to early warning drops in decay rates:
http://aragats.am/fi...n/2003/ASEC.pdf
http://neutronm.bart...er/welcome.html
http://www.esa-space...fswald_muon.pdf
"The information about primary ion type and energy is mostly smeared during
its successive interactions with atmospheric nuclei, therefore, only coherent measurements of all
secondary fluxes (neutrons, muons, and electrons), along with their correlations, can help to make
unambiguous forecasts and estimate the energy spectra of the upcoming dangerous flux. "

There's actually no logic behind changes in decay rate being related to muons from high energy solar protons since those protons are emitted by the flare at the same time as x rays and travel slower than the speed of light. This means that any change in muon rate caused by solar protons would occur after not before the x-rays arrived. Solar induced muons could not be responsible for a change in rates before the flare occured since only the flare itself is going to produce high energy solar protons capable of producing muons.

Nowhere in those links is there anything close to a change 40 hours before a solar flare or other solar event. Your first link is talking about using the few high energy (fast particles) produced by flares to provide warnings for slower but much more numerous particles that arrive later. All of these will be arriving after any electromagnetic radiation spike (x-rays) due to the relative speeds involved.
From your first link:
The high energy particles from the most severe events which can cause damage arrive to Earth about a half hour earlier than the abundant “killer” medium energy particles, thus providing an opportunity to establish an early warning system to alert the client about the potential damage to satellites, the Space Station, space personnel, and flights scheduled over the poles

Your second and third links don't have anything to do with flares or muons generated by solar processes. It's a discussion of how increased activity from the sun can block cosmic rays from interstellar space. They also point out that the effect is directional, which again contradicts what you claim since there was no day/night variation in the paper you are quoting for support.

2nd link:
The defining characteristic of a loss cone precursor is a strong suppression of cosmic ray intensity for particles arriving from the Sunward magnetic field direction
3rd link:
About 10 hours before the SSC an intensity excess in the sunward IMF direction became clearly evident.

There are other events that occur before a solar flare. Sunspots show a cycle before flaring up. The only way to detect if there is about to be a flare is to analyze the fastest particles that burst out before the solar flare.

That's incorrect, the detection of the fastest particles is done after the flare occurs because it's the flare that produces those fast particles. The 'warning' system that your first link talks about is to use the gap in time between the arrival of the fast particles produced by the flare and the slow particles produced by the flare to prepare for the arrival of the slow particles.

Not deniable, subject to corroboration. The article we are discussing gave the studies significant respect, despite the section you are quoting that refers to the need for further corroboration. I agree, further corroboration is needed.

The lack of corroboration, and indeed the failure to replicate by others is why the effect is not considered 'undeniable'. Worth further investigation to find out if anything is actually happening, sure, but it's not certain by any means that there is any actual change in rates occurring.


To answer your question, I would say the muon effect is less on a probe, and so decay rates should be less on earth and faster in space, and be consistent once in space no matter what the solar distance (as the Cassini probe confirms).

If that were the case then there would be a variation from the expected power output for the probe after spending time in space. In other words we launched the probe with a initial amount of radioactive substance at launch, That substance should produce a amount of heat each day that can be predicted based on a constant decay rate. If the decay rate differs there should be a difference between the measured amount of heat on a given day and the predicted amount of heat. There was no variation from the expected which means your claim is incorrect. The decay curve of the power source matched the decay curve expected for the same element on earth.

#25 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 12 September 2012 - 07:36 PM

its a bit too theoretical for me also, I just think people might find it interesting. I sure do. Also, I am not sure if it is said to only speed up beta-decay but they seem to put a lot of emphasis on just beta-decay. Either way, it points to different ways to disrupt the decay rates which many people think are unchanging. Reality is, we really haven't got it all figured out enough to claim that they are. We only know what we have observed in the lab in the past century or less.

That link involves magnetic monopoles which are purely theoretical. There's no evidence they exist so any claim requiring them to exist is on very shaky ground from the outset.

There's also the understatement of the century at the end which I've bolded.

If the galactic magnetic field is not dissipated or distorted, then the monopoles cannot be present at a density of more than one per 10^21 cm3. Thus, the Parker bound placed severe limits on the flux of magnetic monopoles that would be able to impinge upon the earth.
....
If 50% of the K-40 atoms are to be passed by a monopole within the one year of the Flood, then this would indicate that the flux would have to be 2.242 x 10^17 monopoles/(cm2 s). This is a relatively large flux....

Note that at the beginning they indicate that there shouldn't be more than 1 magnetic monopole per 1,000,000 cubic kilometers. Then they calculate that there would need to be 2 x 10^17 per square centimeter on earth.
If we pretend that the 1 per million cubic km value reduces to 1 per 10,000 square km then they are saying that instead of the 1 monopole expected there would actually be 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
That's more than just "relatively large". That's an absurdly high number compared to the suggested limit.

#26 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 12 September 2012 - 09:20 PM

That link involves magnetic monopoles which are purely theoretical. There's no evidence they exist so any claim requiring them to exist is on very shaky ground from the outset.

There's also the understatement of the century at the end which I've bolded.

If the galactic magnetic field is not dissipated or distorted, then the monopoles cannot be present at a density of more than one per 10^21 cm3. Thus, the Parker bound placed severe limits on the flux of magnetic monopoles that would be able to impinge upon the earth.
....
If 50% of the K-40 atoms are to be passed by a monopole within the one year of the Flood, then this would indicate that the flux would have to be 2.242 x 10^17 monopoles/(cm2 s). This is a relatively large flux....

Note that at the beginning they indicate that there shouldn't be more than 1 magnetic monopole per 1,000,000 cubic kilometers. Then they calculate that there would need to be 2 x 10^17 per square centimeter on earth.
If we pretend that the 1 per million cubic km value reduces to 1 per 10,000 square km then they are saying that instead of the 1 monopole expected there would actually be 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
That's more than just "relatively large". That's an absurdly high number compared to the suggested limit.


Yeah I know monopoles are theoretical, but the idea of monopoles didn't arise specifically to further a creationist agenda as you make it seem by your protesting, it completes part of the puzzle in grand unified theories. It isn't much different from the proposal of dark matter. I mentioned I haven't hung my hat on the idea, I just point out that we cannot claim that decay rates have always been constant. It is a huge assumption that nothing can/has ever affected them to any degree.

Your assertions were flat out wrong since you pulled the limit from Parker calculated in 1970 which was based on his assumption that if there were too many monopoles spread throughout the earth, then the magnetic fields would be dissapated or distorted, and magnetic fields were not dissapated nor distorted. You ignored the next paragraph in which they mention Carrigan (1980) suggested that gravity would confine monopoles to the earth's core where magnetic forces on the monopoles would be cancelled by gravitational attraction. Then they give their calculations of a radius (0.02 x earth's radius) in the core of the earth of relatively dense monopoles. In other words, the limitation on monopoles calculated in 1970 by Parker became irrelevant in light of Carrigan's proposals in 1980.

They then provided more vital information in the following quote:


In the Humphreys (1987, 1988) scenario for magnetic field reversals, rapid field reversals take place during the Genesis Flood. During such field reversals, the predominate component of the earth’s magnetic field is no longer the dipole component (Humphreys, 2002), and the chaotic behavior of the field lines during reversals has been established by the computer simulations of Glatzmaier (Ladbury, 1996; Olson et al., 1999; Glatzmaier and Roberts, 1995a, 1995b). Thus, during the rapid field reversals, the monopoles would no longer be confined inside the core, and could be expected to escape to larger radii and to impinge upon radioactive nuclei contained in surface rocks.

In the Glatzmaier simulations, the magnetic field inside the earth’s core can be as large as 560 gauss (Glatzmaier and Roberts, 1995b). This would move the point where the magnetic monopoles concentrate from the 0.02RE radius outward to a point closer to Carrigan’s 0.18RE value. During a reversal, the monopoles could be launched outward by the chaotic behavior of the magnetic field lines, causing the monopoles to interact with nuclei inside the crustal rocks.


Now does it make sense to you?

#27 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 13 September 2012 - 06:15 PM

Yeah I know monopoles are theoretical, but the idea of monopoles didn't arise specifically to further a creationist agenda as you make it seem by your protesting, it completes part of the puzzle in grand unified theories. It isn't much different from the proposal of dark matter. I mentioned I haven't hung my hat on the idea, I just point out that we cannot claim that decay rates have always been constant. It is a huge assumption that nothing can/has ever affected them to any degree.

I'm not saying creationist invented the idea of monopoles. I'm saying that an idea which requires monopoles is on shaky ground from the beginning. While some theories permit the existence of monopoles, there's no actual evidence that they are real. It's vastly different from dark matter since we can observe the effects of dark matter.
We can and have observed decay rates from hundreds of thousands of years ago thanks to the time it takes light to reach us from distant stars so it's not so much an assumption as a observed fact that decay rates for at least some isotopes are the same as they were in the past. As a more general response, it's really just a matter of showing that creationist arguments fail to meet two critera.
Condition 1: Show an alteration in rates great enough to change radiometric dates.
Condition 2: Show that this alteration in rates is possible in conditions that could actually have happened.

Creationist arguments about radiometric dating don't meet both conditions. Their claims either turn out to be a change of a fraction of a percent or require circumstances that simply couldn't have occurred. This idea with monopoles is no different as I'll demonstrate below.


Your assertions were flat out wrong since you pulled the limit from Parker calculated in 1970 which was based on his assumption that if there were too many monopoles spread throughout the earth, then the magnetic fields would be dissapated or distorted, and magnetic fields were not dissapated nor distorted. You ignored the next paragraph in which they mention Carrigan (1980) suggested that gravity would confine monopoles to the earth's core where magnetic forces on the monopoles would be cancelled by gravitational attraction. Then they give their calculations of a radius (0.02 x earth's radius) in the core of the earth of relatively dense monopoles. In other words, the limitation on monopoles calculated in 1970 by Parker became irrelevant in light of Carrigan's proposals in 1980.

They then provided more vital information in the following quote:




Now does it make sense to you?

Here's a link to one of Carrigan's papers referenced in your article
http://lss.fnal.gov/...-80-058-e.shtml

He places a upper bound on the number of monopoles in earth at 1 monopole per 5x10^27 baryons which is still vastly less than required for the idea in the paper you link. I'll use water since it's a simple 1g/cm^3. A cubic centimeter of water contains around 6x10^23 baryons (18 moles of baryons per 18 cubic cm) so a volume of 9 liters would expect to have around 1 monopole. Your paper needs 17 orders of magnitude more passing through each square centimeter of the planet. That's well beyond the bounds of the plausible.

But perhaps your not convinced, lets look at another section of that paper (GUMM is an acronym used in the paper for grand unification magnetic monopole).

Page 4:
"Therefore GUMMs are expected to have masses on the order of 10^16 GeV. This mass of 0.02 micrograms is extraordinarily large for a fundamental particle."

The paper you linked suggests 2x10^17 monopoles passing through every square cm of the earth every second. Let's make it simple and say there's just enough monoples to cover the surface of the earth with 2x10^17 per cm^2 and have them pass through the the earth back and forth really fast. The surface of the earth is around 5.1x10^18 cm^2. That means we'd need around (surface area x flux) = 1 x 10^36 monopoles. Using the mass of .02 micrograms that comes out to 2x10^25 kilograms. The mass of the earth is only 5x10^24 kg so you are talking about 5 times the mass of the entire earth just in monopoles. Is that enough to demonstrate why the suggested number of monopoles in the paper you linked is absurdly high?

#28 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 13 September 2012 - 08:28 PM

I'm not saying creationist invented the idea of monopoles. I'm saying that an idea which requires monopoles is on shaky ground from the beginning. While some theories permit the existence of monopoles, there's no actual evidence that they are real. It's vastly different from dark matter since we can observe the effects of dark matter.


So there is about a 99% chance that dark matter exists but about a 50% (give or take) chance that monopoles exist. No problem, I will agree with you on that, yet we are talking about the % chance that they do exist in this drawn out hypothetical.


We can and have observed decay rates from hundreds of thousands of years ago thanks to the time it takes light to reach us from distant stars so it's not so much an assumption as a observed fact that decay rates for at least some isotopes are the same as they were in the past. As a more general response, it's really just a matter of showing that creationist arguments fail to meet two critera.
Condition 1: Show an alteration in rates great enough to change radiometric dates.
Condition 2: Show that this alteration in rates is possible in conditions that could actually have happened.

Creationist arguments about radiometric dating don't meet both conditions. Their claims either turn out to be a change of a fraction of a percent or require circumstances that simply couldn't have occurred. This idea with monopoles is no different as I'll demonstrate below.



Your protests are fair, proving it would be much like proving abiogenesis, no? A single second in time, or perhaps a few, where all earths radioactivity was accelerated. I guess both of us are still hunting for evidence. It would be fallacious to say that since we observe similar decay rates in space that they have not been accelerated in the past in one or more locations. Now I will say that when we gleaned decay rates from radiometric dating in the Uinkaret flows, we got vastly greater dates than the possible age of human artifacts found engulfed by the lava flow.

You are not wrong though, those are the two conditions that creationists, mostly YEC are looking for to upset the apple cart of radiometric decay. There has certainly been the tendency of arguments against radiometric dating to have failed to meet both criteria. No matter, we will keep searching, we are tenacious.

I would also point out that not all creationists are YEC. OEC don't usually take issue with decay rates. I am sort of agnostic about the age of the earth at this point in my life. I feel there is insufficient evidence to glean both from the Bible and from observable evidence. I sure do like to research these things though. Thanks for your insight.

Here's a link to one of Carrigan's papers referenced in your article
http://lss.fnal.gov/...-80-058-e.shtml

He places a upper bound on the number of monopoles in earth at 1 monopole per 5x10^27 baryons which is still vastly less than required for the idea in the paper you link. I'll use water since it's a simple 1g/cm^3. A cubic centimeter of water contains around 6x10^23 baryons (18 moles of baryons per 18 cubic cm) so a volume of 9 liters would expect to have around 1 monopole. Your paper needs 17 orders of magnitude more passing through each square centimeter of the planet. That's well beyond the bounds of the plausible.

But perhaps your not convinced, lets look at another section of that paper (GUMM is an acronym used in the paper for grand unification magnetic monopole).

Page 4:
"Therefore GUMMs are expected to have masses on the order of 10^16 GeV. This mass of 0.02 micrograms is extraordinarily large for a fundamental particle."

The paper you linked suggests 2x10^17 monopoles passing through every square cm of the earth every second. Let's make it simple and say there's just enough monoples to cover the surface of the earth with 2x10^17 per cm^2 and have them pass through the the earth back and forth really fast. The surface of the earth is around 5.1x10^18 cm^2. That means we'd need around (surface area x flux) = 1 x 10^36 monopoles. Using the mass of .02 micrograms that comes out to 2x10^25 kilograms. The mass of the earth is only 5x10^24 kg so you are talking about 5 times the mass of the entire earth just in monopoles. Is that enough to demonstrate why the suggested number of monopoles in the paper you linked is absurdly high?



I am still skeptical, since I envision that we do not need monopoles going through every square centimeter if their position relative to the earths surface changes from reversal to reversal. There would be a random acceleration of decay rates with some degree of varience throughout the earth's crust.

Thank you for your critical analysis of the facts and figures, I will keep an eye out for further developments in the future.

Cheers.

#29 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 14 September 2012 - 12:42 AM

That's incorrect, the detection of the fastest particles is done after the flare occurs because it's the flare that produces those fast particles. The 'warning' system that your first link talks about is to use the gap in time between the arrival of the fast particles produced by the flare and the slow particles produced by the flare to prepare for the arrival of the slow particles.


This is true, they are mainly used to predict that approximately one hour interval. Protons and thus muons are a good way to predict this. But due to increased solar activity often occurring more than 24 hours before a flare, it is possible for there to be an earlier spike in protons before a solar flare.

Regardless, I think we are getting off-topic by requiring proof of a muon spike at Purdue University 40 hours before that particular flare, they didn't measure muons there so both of us do not know if there was actually a muon spike there at Purdue University or not , there could have been.

The lack of corroboration, and indeed the failure to replicate by others is why the effect is not considered 'undeniable'. Worth further investigation to find out if anything is actually happening, sure, but it's not certain by any means that there is any actual change in rates occurring.


The instruments are recording the changes, and recording regular daily and seasonal decay changes in regular patterns. I am confident that respected institutions like Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey would factor in temperature effects on the instruments. The academic world is taking these results seriously, but everyone agrees there needs to be more corroboration.


If that were the case then there would be a variation from the expected power output for the probe after spending time in space. In other words we launched the probe with a initial amount of radioactive substance at launch, That substance should produce a amount of heat each day that can be predicted based on a constant decay rate. If the decay rate differs there should be a difference between the measured amount of heat on a given day and the predicted amount of heat. There was no variation from the expected which means your claim is incorrect. The decay curve of the power source matched the decay curve expected for the same element on earth.


You keep coming back to this point? I agree distance has no effect on decay. This fits in with muons because of the lack of muons and neutrons in space, and the presence of muons and neutrons on earth. And so if you are close to earth or far from earth, the lack of change in decay rates fits in with the muon hypothesis. They need to compare decay rates on earth with decay rates in space, that will be significant to the muon hypothesis.

You were referring to a mechanism, I'm still considering this, but the mechanism isn't a stabilizing of the radioactive isotope, but the maintaining of the instability by neutron bombardment coming from the decaying muons. In other words the radioactivity is maintained through keeping parent isotopes unstable by maintaining excess neutrons. Neutrons cause radioactivity.

#30 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 14 September 2012 - 02:04 PM

This is true, they are mainly used to predict that approximately one hour interval. Protons and thus muons are a good way to predict this. But due to increased solar activity often occurring more than 24 hours before a flare, it is possible for there to be an earlier spike in protons before a solar flare.

Regardless, I think we are getting off-topic by requiring proof of a muon spike at Purdue University 40 hours before that particular flare, they didn't measure muons there so both of us do not know if there was actually a muon spike there at Purdue University or not , there could have been.

Not all protons are equally energetic. If you recall back near the beginning of this thread it requires around 100 MeV to produce a muon. Solar protons only reach that energy when they are accelerated by flares or CME's. Earlier pre-flare proton emissions don't have the required energy to produce muons so they couldn't produce a spike in muons. That's why it's reasonably safe to conclude that sun-related muons can't be responsible for something occuring before a flare.

http://en.wikipedia....ar_proton_event
Solar protons normally have insufficient energy to penetrate through the Earth's magnetic field. However, during unusually strong solar flare events, protons can be produced with sufficient energies to penetrate deeper into the Earth's magnetosphere and ionosphere.


You keep coming back to this point? I agree distance has no effect on decay. This fits in with muons because of the lack of muons and neutrons in space, and the presence of muons and neutrons on earth. And so if you are close to earth or far from earth, the lack of change in decay rates fits in with the muon hypothesis. They need to compare decay rates on earth with decay rates in space, that will be significant to the muon hypothesis.

1. I've been unable to find a online source to provide to you, but I'm reasonably sure that any collision with a nucleus (regardless of whether it's part of a gas or solid) by a high enough energy proton will be able to produce muons. The reason most muon production on earth occurs in the atmosphere is because that's the first thing a cosmic ray can strike. If you accept this then there would be a difference due to distance from the sun caused by the variable numbers of solar protons striking the probe (inverse square law).

2. If you prefer to reject point 1 then there's the problem of explaining why moon rocks (no atmosphere) have the same old radiometric ages as earth rocks. There's also the problem that no radiometric power source in space has been observed to decay too fast. The voyager 2 probe has been functioning since the 70's and should remain powered until around 2020. If decay rates were accelerated in space by any amount consistent with a young universe, space-traveling radiometric power sources should have become useless well before the expected dates. The cassinni probe which I have been mentioning was very carefully monitored, if there had been a excess or loss of power due to being in space it should have shown up in the data.


You were referring to a mechanism, I'm still considering this, but the mechanism isn't a stabilizing of the radioactive isotope, but the maintaining of the instability by neutron bombardment coming from the decaying muons. In other words the radioactivity is maintained through keeping parent isotopes unstable by maintaining excess neutrons. Neutrons cause radioactivity.

There's quite a few problems with this idea. Just off the top of my head

Muons don't decay into neutrons.
Replacing an emitted decay particle wouldn't reduce the counts of emitted decay particles. (Fire 6 bullets, then reload, does someone counting shots think you've fired 6 or 0 bullets?). Please note that the Fishbach paper measured a decrease in counts. "Each data point in Figs. 1-3 then represents the number of counts in the subsequent 4 hour period"
Alpha decay involves expelling 2 protons and 2 neutrons so your idea couldn't 'maintain' or replace lost alpha particles.
Gamma decay involves expelling photons so your idea couldn't 'maintain' gamma emitters.
Muons are charged particles and charge must be conserved. At best you'd be performing something like a reverse beta decay where instead of converting a neutron into a proton and emitting the excess negative charge, you'd be converting a proton into a neutron. However this would change the atomic number and almost certainly make it more unstable rather than less due to the increased difference between protons and neutrons. It would act to increase the number of decay events, not decrease them.

#31 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 14 September 2012 - 03:20 PM

Actually I take that back, the more I research dark matter, the more I see that we have been searching for nearly 80 years and coming up with nothing, so technically, although we are using dark matter to explain a phenomena, it isn't necessarily the correct explanation. Dark matter hasn't lead to any fulfilled predictions either, so no street cred there. I find that monopoles are almost exactly in the same boat; theoretical, used to explain a phenomena, and unobserved. The big difference is that we are at the beginning stages of investigating monopoles (they would be harder to observe I say).

Cheers.

#32 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 17 September 2012 - 02:59 AM

Not all protons are equally energetic. If you recall back near the beginning of this thread it requires around 100 MeV to produce a muon. Solar protons only reach that energy when they are accelerated by flares or CME's. Earlier pre-flare proton emissions don't have the required energy to produce muons so they couldn't produce a spike in muons. That's why it's reasonably safe to conclude that sun-related muons can't be responsible for something occuring before a flare.


It is possible for pre-flare protons to reach near speed of light. CMEs can sometimes precede solar flares, and CME's eject near light speed protons:
On our website you'll find a data plot with the primary >10MeV solar protons, or in short the Proton flux monitor. With huge explosions on the Sun a Solar radiation storm can be triggered. The Solar protons get blown into space with the speed of light and are the first particles to arrive at Earth. So we know verry fast if a Solar radiation storm is triggered and, in a less accurate way, if the CME is Earth directed.

In addition there were 3 C-class flare on 11th December which preceded the larger flares that occurred at 3am on 13th December and then 41 hours later on 14th December. The significance of those December flares is that they originated in a region that was earth facing which produces more earth striking solar activity than normal. I can't find any proton/muon readings for the whole period 11-14 December 2006. Considering the 3 C-class flares I definitely cannot rule out a slight high speed proton spike on 11th December , if you have information to rule this out please submit it, otherwise the possibility does exist.

What I have found , which is partly unrelated to solar flares, is that there was a low pressure system over Indiana on the 11th and 12th December, which would contribute towards an earlier muon spike. Muon's always spike during low air pressures (they have a better chance of reaching the earth's surface if the air is less dense)



1. I've been unable to find a online source to provide to you, but I'm reasonably sure that any collision with a nucleus (regardless of whether it's part of a gas or solid) by a high enough energy proton will be able to produce muons. The reason most muon production on earth occurs in the atmosphere is because that's the first thing a cosmic ray can strike. If you accept this then there would be a difference due to distance from the sun caused by the variable numbers of solar protons striking the probe (inverse square law).

2. If you prefer to reject point 1 then there's the problem of explaining why moon rocks (no atmosphere) have the same old radiometric ages as earth rocks. There's also the problem that no radiometric power source in space has been observed to decay too fast. The voyager 2 probe has been functioning since the 70's and should remain powered until around 2020. If decay rates were accelerated in space by any amount consistent with a young universe, space-traveling radiometric power sources should have become useless well before the expected dates. The cassinni probe which I have been mentioning was very carefully monitored, if there had been a excess or loss of power due to being in space it should have shown up in the data.


I do reject point one, because one of the seasonal differences in muon production caused by weather, atmospheric air pressure, which is seasonally related. The other possibility is the magnetic field poles are leaning towards the sun in summer, making the higher latitudes more vulnerable to solar flares in summer. Outside of solar flares even the magnetic poles are safe from the solar wind.

You keep mentioning the Cassini probe, I keep telling you its irrelevant unless you have figures before take-off compared to space.

Regarding the moon, according to my theory rocks there would age quicker via muon bombardment. (10% more muons without magnetic protection as you showed in an earlier post)
http://csep10.phys.u...on_surface.html
Thus, the oldest material from the surface of the Moon is almost as old as we believe the Solar System to be. This is more than a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks that have been found

There's quite a few problems with this idea. Just off the top of my head

Muons don't decay into neutrons.


They do not decay into neutrons, but muon decay produces neutrons:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3110.pdf
Neutrons are produced by muons via 4 main processes: i) negative muon capture (relevant only to low-energy, stopping muons, or for shallow depths less than 100 m w. e.);
ii) direct muon-induced spallation of a nucleus; iii) photoproduction of neutrons or
photon-induced spallation (mainly in electromagnetic cascades initiated by muons);
iv) hadroproduction of neutrons (mainly in hadronic or nuclear cascades originated by
muons). The relative contribution of different processes in different models have been
investigated in Refs. [1, 2].

#33 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 17 September 2012 - 01:56 PM

It is possible for pre-flare protons to reach near speed of light. CMEs can sometimes precede solar flares, and CME's eject near light speed protons:
On our website you'll find a data plot with the primary >10MeV solar protons, or in short the Proton flux monitor. With huge explosions on the Sun a Solar radiation storm can be triggered. The Solar protons get blown into space with the speed of light and are the first particles to arrive at Earth. So we know verry fast if a Solar radiation storm is triggered and, in a less accurate way, if the CME is Earth directed.

In addition there were 3 C-class flare on 11th December which preceded the larger flares that occurred at 3am on 13th December and then 41 hours later on 14th December. The significance of those December flares is that they originated in a region that was earth facing which produces more earth striking solar activity than normal. I can't find any proton/muon readings for the whole period 11-14 December 2006. Considering the 3 C-class flares I definitely cannot rule out a slight high speed proton spike on 11th December , if you have information to rule this out please submit it, otherwise the possibility does exist.

What I have found , which is partly unrelated to solar flares, is that there was a low pressure system over Indiana on the 11th and 12th December, which would contribute towards an earlier muon spike. Muon's always spike during low air pressures (they have a better chance of reaching the earth's surface if the air is less dense)

It is extremely unlikely that a C-class solar flare will produce protons with energy above 100 MeV.

http://www.tesis.leb...=12&d=11&y=2006
Here's data showing the three flares, notice that they are all C-class. Notice that the strongest one had a duration of about half an hour.

http://cosray.phys.u...cations/D57.pdf
Look at the chart on page 11 to see that anything below M6 (C-class is 10 times weaker than M-class) flares with a duration of 30 minutes had around a 1-2% chance of producing protons >10MeV. Higher energy protons (i.e. >100 MeV) from weaker flares (i.e. C-class) would be even less likely.


I do reject point one, because one of the seasonal differences in muon production caused by weather, atmospheric air pressure, which is seasonally related. The other possibility is the magnetic field poles are leaning towards the sun in summer, making the higher latitudes more vulnerable to solar flares in summer. Outside of solar flares even the magnetic poles are safe from the solar wind.

I think you missed my point. I was addressing your argument that there were no muons in space so any point in space should be the same from a muon count perspective. Point 1 had nothing to do with earth or seasons at all.

You keep mentioning the Cassini probe, I keep telling you its irrelevant unless you have figures before take-off compared to space.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.4248v1.pdf
The paper I linked gave you the power at take-off (878 W) and a graph showing smoothly decreasing power measurements over the next few years in space. There was no sharp increase in power after launch from a ten- or hundred- or thousand- or million-fold increase in decay rates which is what would be needed to get rid of long ages.

Regarding the moon, according to my theory rocks there would age quicker via muon bombardment. (10% more muons without magnetic protection as you showed in an earlier post)
http://csep10.phys.u...on_surface.html
Thus, the oldest material from the surface of the Moon is almost as old as we believe the Solar System to be. This is more than a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks that have been found

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your argument that the more muons, the slower something will age? Here's your exact words from an earlier post:
"...more muons and less decay, ..... less muons more decay"

Now you are stating the exact opposite, that the moon experiences more muons due to no lunar magnetic field and that this correlates to an older age instead of younger. You are now claiming that more moon muons=more moon radioactive decay which directly contradicts your original claim.

As an added bonus, if you accept that muons are created on the moon then you can't reject the conclusion from point 1.

The argument goes as follows:
1. High energy protons (>100MeV) are capable of producing muons via collision with atoms/molecules.
2. If you agree that high energy protons striking the moon create muons, then you can't turn around and claim that high energy protons striking space probes don't create muons.
3. If protons striking space probes create muons, the number of protons striking space probes should directly relate to the number of muons affecting space probes
4. The number of solar protons striking space probes will vary with distance from the sun, therefore the number of muons affecting space probes will vary with distance from the sun.
5. If the number of muons caused by solar protons is related to changes in decay rates there will be a change that varies with distance from the sun.
6. There is no change in decay rates that varies with distance from the sun.

http://en.wikipedia....strial_material
The difference between the oldest earth mineral (note the distinction between mineral and rock) and moon rocks is about a hundred million years, not a billion.

They do not decay into neutrons, but muon decay produces neutrons:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3110.pdf
Neutrons are produced by muons via 4 main processes: i) negative muon capture (relevant only to low-energy, stopping muons, or for shallow depths less than 100 m w. e.);
ii) direct muon-induced spallation of a nucleus; iii) photoproduction of neutrons or
photon-induced spallation (mainly in electromagnetic cascades initiated by muons);
iv) hadroproduction of neutrons (mainly in hadronic or nuclear cascades originated by
muons). The relative contribution of different processes in different models have been
investigated in Refs. [1, 2].

Leaving aside how rare these processes are likely to be, the relative numbers of non-radioactive atoms to radioactive atoms means that any change in neutron count produced by a muon would be more likely to convert a non-radioactive isotope into a radioactive isotope than vice versa. The decay count would increase instead of decrease.

#34 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 17 September 2012 - 05:10 PM

Miles. I don't know what you think you're proving here but unless you can firmly establish that decay rates are always constant you have no case. So hang it up because we all know you can't do that.
  • NewPath likes this

#35 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 September 2012 - 03:53 AM

Miles. I don't know what you think you're proving here but unless you can firmly establish that decay rates are always constant you have no case. So hang it up because we all know you can't do that.


Exactly, the decay rate changes have been officialy recorded by reputable institutions, and I'm confident that they will continue to do so.

I don't mind the back and forth with him though because I'm checking out my muon hypothesis which seems more fitting than the neutrino hypothesis of Jenkins. I like a theory to stand up to scrutiny and so his objections have been worthwhile.

#36 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 18 September 2012 - 09:02 AM

Exactly, the decay rate changes have been officialy recorded by reputable institutions, and I'm confident that they will continue to do so.
....

,,, Under certain conditions, yes. But what if those conditions weren't always the same. i.e. pressure, heat, radioactivity or perhaps unknown factors?

#37 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 September 2012 - 10:55 AM

,,, Under certain conditions, yes. But what if those conditions weren't always the same. i.e. pressure, heat, radioactivity or perhaps unknown factors?


I think you missed my point. I am saying that the inconsistency in the decay rate is now officially recorded. Before this it was always assumed to be absolutely constant, now constant decay is officially in doubt as they are looking to disprove or corroborate the Israel Geological Survey findings and Purdue University findings that created the doubt.

And so I agree with you, changed conditions in the past could have greatly affected decay rates, because even just slight changes to modern weather patterns (summer/winter) seem to affect the decay rate even today.

#38 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:00 PM

It is extremely unlikely that a C-class solar flare will produce protons with energy above 100 MeV.

http://www.tesis.leb...=12&d=11&y=2006
Here's data showing the three flares, notice that they are all C-class. Notice that the strongest one had a duration of about half an hour.

http://cosray.phys.u...cations/D57.pdf
Look at the chart on page 11 to see that anything below M6 (C-class is 10 times weaker than M-class) flares with a duration of 30 minutes had around a 1-2% chance of producing protons >10MeV. Higher energy protons (i.e. >100 MeV) from weaker flares (i.e. C-class) would be even less likely.


This is exactly what I am saying, the rare early change in decay rate could be caused by a rare (1-2%) flux of high-speed protons from one of the 3 C class flares. So we are in agreement that it could have happened, that is my whole point, it could have happened.

Also there was a low pressure system over Indiana that day, which also spikes muons.


I think you missed my point. I was addressing your argument that there were no muons in space so any point in space should be the same from a muon count perspective. Point 1 had nothing to do with earth or seasons at all.

Yes any point should be the same, the radioactive element can decay at its natural fast rate without any outside "slowdown" effect as you go further from space. Obviously for short life radioactive isotopes the natural decay would slow down over that period, but be unaffected by any outside factors.





Now you are stating the exact opposite, that the moon experiences more muons due to no lunar magnetic field and that this correlates to an older age instead of younger. You are now claiming that more moon muons=more moon radioactive decay which directly contradicts your original claim.


Lol! Yes I made a stupid error there. I sometimes battle intuitively with the concept that increased bombardment slows down decay instead of increases decay.


http://en.wikipedia....strial_material
The difference between the oldest earth mineral (note the distinction between mineral and rock) and moon rocks is about a hundred million years, not a billion.


I see various links differ. This particular link says the moon is 200 million years younger than earth:
http://news.ku.dk/al...han-we-thought/

Leaving aside how rare these processes are likely to be, the relative numbers of non-radioactive atoms to radioactive atoms means that any change in neutron count produced by a muon would be more likely to convert a non-radioactive isotope into a radioactive isotope than vice versa. The decay count would increase instead of decrease

How do you know the relative numbers of parent/daughter isotopes?
The more I read on the topic the more I realize that there are a variety of processes regarding neutron bombardment. If you look at Manganese 54, one of the isotopes of the Purdue study, we see the instability comes through a lack of neutrons. Once neutron capture stabilizes it to Manganese 55 I'm assuming the neutron capture is then more difficult because Manganese 56 isn't common in nature. Thus neutrons could be captured until natural stability is reached.

#39 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 18 September 2012 - 05:42 PM

This is exactly what I am saying, the rare early change in decay rate could be caused by a rare (1-2%) flux of high-speed protons from one of the 3 C class flares. So we are in agreement that it could have happened, that is my whole point, it could have happened.

Lots of things 'could' happen. 'Could' doesn't mean 'should be taken seriously'. If you look at the Fishbach paper you'll see that the decay counts actually increased (look at the slope) after the more powerful X-class flares. You'd need to think that a weaker flare produced a lot of muons while a much stronger flare produced fewer/none. That's a bit problematic since you've already argued that the X-class flare produced a increase in muons at ground level.

Also there was a low pressure system over Indiana that day, which also spikes muons.

Yes any point should be the same, the radioactive element can decay at its natural fast rate without any outside "slowdown" effect as you go further from space. Obviously for short life radioactive isotopes the natural decay would slow down over that period, but be unaffected by any outside factors.


The problem is that the data from launch indicate no increase in decay rate at all, certainly none that would be pose a problem for old ages.

Time for math....
The cassini probe had 23.1 kg of Pu-238. That's 5.84x10^25 atoms. With a half life of 87.7 years, the number of atoms decaying per second at launch is around 1.46*10^16. At 5.6MeV per decay and 1.6*10^-19 J/MeV that works out to around 13100 W of thermal energy. Accounting for some rounding, that matches what the paper I linked stated.
Together these sources produced 878w of electrical power from  ~13Kw of radioactive decay heat at launch.
The conversion between thermal energy and electrical energy is very inefficient which accounts for the change from 13K thermal to 878 electrical.

If the decay rate changed by even 10% in space that would mean that the thermal energy would increase by around 10% and the electrical energy would also increase by a similar percentage (it's unlikely that efficiency would decrease as temperature went up, typically electrical generation becomes more efficient as temperature of the heat source increases).

Let's say it takes a day to get away from earth's atmosphere so there's 1 day of 'normal decay' and then after 1 day your proposed accelerated decay kicks in.

Without a change in decay rate: the amount of Pu lost in 1 day would be 9.1*10^20 atoms. The thermal output of the leftover would be around 13100 W. Not much change from the day of the launch.
With a change in decay rate after 1 day of only 10%: The amount of Pu lost in the previous 1 day would be 9.1*10^20 atoms. The thermal output of the leftover at the new accelerated decay rate would be 14500 W. That's a 10% increase from the launch value. There was no spike in power above the launch value so we can rule out any large change in decay rates from your idea.

In case you feel 1 day is a insufficient sample size, with just a 10% faster decay rate, it would take years before the thermal output dropped below the launch value.
In one year at a 10% faster rate, the amount of Pu lost in that year would be around 5.1*10^23 atoms. The thermal output of the leftover at the accelerated decay rate would be 14400 W, still well above the launch value.

That's why your idea that decay rates would be changed by space effects or lack thereof is ruled out by the data. There's no jump in energy above 878W after launch.

How do you know the relative numbers of parent/daughter isotopes?
The more I read on the topic the more I realize that there are a variety of processes regarding neutron bombardment. If you look at Manganese 54, one of the isotopes of the Purdue study, we see the instability comes through a lack of neutrons. Once neutron capture stabilizes it to Manganese 55 I'm assuming the neutron capture is then more difficult because Manganese 56 isn't common in nature. Thus neutrons could be captured until natural stability is reached.

The earth is overwhelmingly made up of non-radioactive isotopes. Just considering available targets a incoming particle is more likely to strike a non-radioactive atom than a radioactive one. As an example, the most common isotope (90%) of the most common element on earth (32%) is Iron-56. If a muon was able to strike Fe-56 and convert a proton into a neutron (remember charge needs to be conserved so a negatively charged muon can't create a neutron unless it cancels out a positive charge) it would result in MN-56 which is unstable. The number of radioactive decays would increase not decrease because a non-radioactive element was converted into a radioactive element.

Also if you want to use muons as a source for adding neutrons to individual atoms, you should look up the relative abundance of incoming muons vs the number of atoms in a mole. The average influx of muons at sea level is around 1 per minute per cm^2. You linked to a paper showing a 100% increase in muons during a flare, but getting 2 muons instead of 1 per minute isn't going to do much. If you had 10 muons per cm^2 per minute and each one struck a different atom in a 1cm cube of Mn-54, it would take 15,000,000,000,000,000 years to strike all of them. It would require 15 trillion years just to affect .1% of the atoms.
http://cosmic.lbl.go..._Rays/Muons.htm

#40 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:30 PM

My question here is rather what else can alter the decay rate which humans today may not know and thus can't prevent them from altering the decay rate in the past? Or are we just assume that humans know everything such that nothing ever affected the decay rate? Isn't human omnipotence one of the assumptions for decay rate to work at all?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users