Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    If this is true, massive theoretical as well as real life implications.

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...un-082310.html

    A surprise

    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.

    The explanation? The core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. "It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun," Sturrock said.

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

    But there's one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.

    "It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

    "It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."

    If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.


    I am always pleased when scientists have to admit that what they have been preaching as truth may not be as true as they thought it was.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
      If this is true, massive theoretical as well as real life implications.
      Could you please expand on what you think the real life implications would be?

      Thanks.
      raja
      Boycott Big Banks Vote Out Incumbents

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

        Originally posted by Forrest View Post
        I am always pleased when scientists have to admit that what they have been preaching as truth may not be as true as they thought it was.
        The hard sciences typically can't avoid fitting and reforming hypotheses based on observables. If we could only get the social "scientists" to do this as well Observe that the "sciences" which inform and dictate the majority of governmental policy are soft (or pseudo) in some cases - anthropology /sociology / psychology and of course most influential: Economics - very convenient for since most of these can be molded to support whatever policies are desired by TPTB, and many tenets are developed not by rigor including falsibility of hypothesis but by consensus.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

          Originally posted by raja
          Could you please expand on what you think the real life implications would be?
          The proven existence of an effect which can span such an enormous distance - a great field to work in for the next generation's communications capability. The effect also appears to be little affected by matter - thus might be impossible to block.

          Weaponization - the ability to generate said particles could be used to much more rapidly age an opponent's nuclear arsenal. It could be also used to screw up nuclear reactors. It could be used to accelerate the aging of nuclear waste.

          It definitely affects the parts of the medical field associated with radioactives. Do radioactive tracers need to be calibrated? Do irradiation sources need to be calibrated? How are CT scans affected? X Rays? CAT?

          Other impacts: carbon dating. How sure are we now of dates previously assayed via carbon 14 decay rates? Some smoke detectors contain a radioactive isotope - americium. Satellites and space probes often use fission power generation.

          The ability to affect matter with essentially unblockable particles also means there could very well be other potential effects.

          If this effect impacts atomic decay - does it also impact other atomic behavior? For example, the time keeping of atomic clocks?

          If the effects are due to neutrinos, or some new particle, this also brings more pressure on the standard model - as this type of effect is completely not covered (to my understanding).
          Last edited by c1ue; 05-15-13, 01:54 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

            Originally posted by c1ue View Post

            Other impacts: carbon dating. How sure are we now of dates previously assayed via carbon 14 decay rates?
            Thanks. Truly fascinating . . . .

            On the carbon dating, could dates be grossly off or still in the ballpark?
            raja
            Boycott Big Banks Vote Out Incumbents

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

              Originally posted by raja View Post
              Thanks. Truly fascinating . . . .

              On the carbon dating, could dates be grossly off or still in the ballpark?
              I think it could be grossly off...there is no guarantee that the amount and frequency of neutrinos emitted in the past are consistant with what is happening today, and it will be a long time until they can even verify the effect, it's strength or frequency.

              I once saw an article about a petrified fox being found inside a tree. I don't recall if the tree was petrified, or not, but it seems likely. When carbon dating the fox, they found that is was only 30 or so years old. Not being able to explain it, the scientists involved hastily dropped the problem because it conflicted with the carbon dating theory at the time. It's not the first time that something with an odd result in carbon dating has been assumed to be wrong because it did not fit with the over all theory of carbon dating. And now, who knows what is the truth? Or what can be proven anymore!

              So much fun!!!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

                Originally posted by Forrest View Post
                I think it could be grossly off...there is no guarantee that the amount and frequency of neutrinos emitted in the past are consistant with what is happening today, and it will be a long time until they can even verify the effect, it's strength or frequency.

                I once saw an article about a petrified fox being found inside a tree. I don't recall if the tree was petrified, or not, but it seems likely. When carbon dating the fox, they found that is was only 30 or so years old. Not being able to explain it, the scientists involved hastily dropped the problem because it conflicted with the carbon dating theory at the time. It's not the first time that something with an odd result in carbon dating has been assumed to be wrong because it did not fit with the over all theory of carbon dating. And now, who knows what is the truth? Or what can be proven anymore!

                So much fun!!!
                There must be some confusion here. Radiocarbon dating can't place things with sufficient precision to say anything was "30 or so years old." It usually can't give a meaningful answer with a time sensitivity smaller than thousands of years, given the noise floor. If that was the reported result, the tech didn't understand the limits of his tools, either the meter itself, or the intrinsic variability in absorbed isotopes in a given sample. (Which I suppose might also legitimately call into question other aspects of their measurement.)

                It's a bit like saying you used a ruler to measure the size of a molecule. Whether the number "fits with the overall theory" or not, you know that the guy reporting that result made a mistake, because it is simply a non-physically precise result, independent of the numerical value itself.
                Last edited by astonas; 05-15-13, 08:24 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

                  I understand your point, however, in the article the scientists were assuming many, many years for petrification, when with the right chemical mix, petrification can happen very quickly, far shorter than people assume, to the point there are actual formulas now for the quick petrifaction of trees, and so forth.

                  Wood can be petrified in a matter of days or weeks given the right chemical "cocktail'. Although the exact recipe is patented by Hamilton Hicks of Greenwich, Connecticut, the mix includes materials commonly found in areas of volcanic activity. Mineral rich waters containing calcium, magnesium, and manganese as well as some type of acid produce a bath that penetrates the wood and petrifies it. At the Department of Energy lab wood has been petrified by using an acid bath, followed by soaking in silica then being dried in an argon-filled furnace. In Queensland, Australia there have been numerous examples of fence posts, axe-chopped wood, etc with known dates in the early 1900's being buried then when later uncovered. It would appear that contrary to the common thinking on the subject of petrification the process does not take millions of years but rather a particular set of circumstances including acids, minerals, and hot and/or dry conditions. This explains how the wood grain is so perfectly preserved in the petrification process. If the process took millions of years the wood would have long since deteriorated and therefore the material which replaced it would not have the look and grain of wood.


                  There may have been other proofs regarding the age of the fox/tree. In any event, the scientists involved didn't seem to think the time allotted was sufficient for the petrifaction of the fox/tree they were looking at. Perhaps they were unaware of how petrifaction occurs under different element mixes.

                  My point was that if neutrinos can speed up the rate of the half-life in erratic ways, it would become impossible to trust any carbon dating. At any event, it is the shaking of the scientific certainty of theories that entertains me, since to me a theory is merely a posited guess based on known information. Now that there may be more to know, they cannot be so pot sure of their conclusions. It will not, of course, cause them to moderate the certainty of their conviction that current carbon dating is as accurate as they thought. It is enough for me that they feel the moment of awe at the suddenly expanded horizons that they face, instead of thinking all of their information settled fact.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

                    are there methods to generate the HUGE numbers of neutrinos needed to deliberately impact a radiation-based artifact?

                    this reminds me of a column in the nytimes many years ago. it was when someone proposed a neutron bomb, which would kill living things via neutron radiation, while leaving physical assets undisturbed. the column proposed instead a neutrino bomb, which would produce altogether harmless neutrino radiation while making a very loud BANG, so the targets would know they'd been had.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Particles which don't interact with anything apparently affecting physics constants (i.e. not constant)

                      Originally posted by jk
                      are there methods to generate the HUGE numbers of neutrinos needed to deliberately impact a radiation-based artifact?
                      To my knowledge, no. But then again, there wasn't really any reason to do so previously.

                      Ways by which neutrinos are generated now: nuclear decay/nuclear fission, cosmic rays hitting atoms. The latter would seem like one path to neutrino generation, though probably less than useful since most cosmic ray generation at a large scale involves nuclear weapons.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X