Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 2 Post By Harold14370

Thread: Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

  1. #1 Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle? 
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    This is interesting. I have heard bits of this before, but it is still a mystery...

    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?
    Stay away from the comments section - unless you are a fan of even crazier ideas than we get in "New Hypotheses"

    Oh yes. A link.
    http://news.discovery.com/space/is-t...-particle.html


    Last edited by Strange; August 29th, 2012 at 09:52 AM.
    msafwan likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Supposed to be a link there somewhere Strange?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Er, yes. Edited.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Fascinating, wish I knew more about the standard model.
    Does every particle in the SM have it's own associated field, or do some particles "share" a field?
    I'm going to guess that neutrinos are the culprit here, wouldn't symmetry groups have already shown where there are missing particles? As in like the Higgs.
    I did read some of the comments, I shouldn't have, next time I'll listen.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Radioactive decay on Earth is effected by the sun's activity! Really cool. -No one has ever expected this link, amazing.
    ---

    Also its cool that suddenly we had a very powerful technique to predict solar weather. Amazing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Someone has just pointed out that the article links to a 2 year old report from Stanford.

    This paper finds no such correlation: Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance

    Oh well. It was fun while it lasted.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Someone has just pointed out that the article links to a 2 year old report from Stanford.

    This paper finds no such correlation: Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance
    Even if there's no correlation between sun-earth-distance and decay rate, there's a mysterious "annual variation modulating" acknowledged by the paper. The paper says:
    Several careful experiments designed to study the decays of
    long-lived radioactive isotopes have reported observations of small
    periodic annual variations modulating the well-known exponential
    decay curve [1–3]. Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these
    decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between
    the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the
    underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be
    some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps
    was the result of the (3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
    neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were
    correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of
    science and engineering.
    -Surely the 'seasonal' variation is acknowledged as exist, which it itself never even taught in any textbook as even existed, and the paper's intention is just to refute Jenkins et al. theory that it is caused by the sun.
    ---
    And the link in OP just wanted to say that "it is indeeeed caused by the sun". Probably they wanted to say they had new evidence or something. -Nevertheless... I didn't know radioactive decay has seasonal variation?? did you? Interesting.
    Last edited by msafwan; August 29th, 2012 at 01:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Even if there's no correlation between sun-earth-distance and decay rate, there's a mysterious "annual variation modulating" acknowledged by the paper.
    ... I didn't know radioactive decay has seasonal variation?? did you? Interesting.
    The second paper found no such annual variation. From the conclusion:
    Our results strongly
    disfavor the suggestions by Jenkins et al. [4] of an annual variation
    based on a previously unobserved field produced by the Sun or the
    annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Sorry msafwan, But;
    when the ratio of observed count rates of 154Eu/226Ra was examined,
    the annual variations disappeared (see Fig. 3 of Ref. [2]). These authors attributedthe annual variations observed from the decays of a single source
    to a yearly variation in the performance of their experimental
    equipment that cancelled out in the ratio
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    No, those are waves in the superfluid. The UPN is fully vindicated. We need to get Urod back.
    SpeedFreek and TheObserver like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Micro-vortexes man!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Sorry msafwan, But;
    when the ratio of observed count rates of 154Eu/226Ra was examined,
    the annual variations disappeared (see Fig. 3 of Ref. [2]). These authors attributedthe annual variations observed from the decays of a single source
    to a yearly variation in the performance of their experimental
    equipment that cancelled out in the ratio
    Look at the graph. There's indeed a *small* wavy variation. -eg: Look at fig.3: there's time where most dot are below 1 and time where most dot are above 1, and fig.1: a ridiculusly obvious pattern of a wave, except fig.2: which has no pattern.

    Do you want that variation to EXACTLY match the amplitude *drawn on top of the graph* before you acknowledge the wavy variation exist??? That amplitude is just to compare with Jenkin et. al. theory. -That doesn't mean the variation didn't exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,911
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Look at the graph. There's a small wavy variation! -Do you want that variation to EXACTLY match the amplitude drawn *on top of the graph* before you acknowledge the wavy variation exist???
    You can not analyse graphs by eyeball. You need to do a correlation and determine if there is a statistically significant fit.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    You can not analyse graphs by eyeball. You need to do a correlation and determine if there is a statistically significant fit.
    You look at it and say "it isn't there" please...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Emitting Sounds
    By Virtuoso in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2014, 08:23 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 30th, 2012, 03:05 PM
  3. Does a substance emitting light lose mass?
    By jetstove in forum Physics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: May 14th, 2012, 12:39 PM
  4. Unexplained Particle Produced By The Sun
    By The_Seeker in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 14th, 2010, 01:23 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 7th, 2010, 12:01 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •