Radioactive Decay not a constant ?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Radioactive Decay not a constant ?

Post by ravingdave »

If true, it looks like we don't understand everything yet.


http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature ... or_less%29



David

Solo
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by Solo »

Wow, that's interesting. Thanks for posting! It reminds me of the claims I heard from "young earth creationists" who needed to discredit radioisotope dating; this is much more convincing obviously. Someone was paying attention to detail.

classicpenny
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
Location: Port Angeles WA USA
Contact:

Post by classicpenny »

Solo wrote:It reminds me of the claims I heard from "young earth creationists" who needed to discredit radioisotope dating.
However, in this report, these are only variations in tenths of a percent. Young earth creationists would need variations by several orders of magnitude, to get the young (5000 yr old) earth they want.

Bill Flint

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Post by Professor Science »

I've often pondered over how universal the physics we've established. How is it we're positive all the observations we've made on earth would also occur elsewhere. We've flubbed up like that before with that whole air-resistance-falling thing.
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Professor Science wrote:I've often pondered over how universal the physics we've established. How is it we're positive all the observations we've made on earth would also occur elsewhere. We've flubbed up like that before with that whole air-resistance-falling thing.
None of it's for sure. It's a continuous work in progress, an asymptotic progress towards the exact truth of the matter.
From desire ariseth the thought of some means we have seen produce the like of that which we aim at; and from the thought of that, the thought of means to that mean; and so continually, till we come to some beginning within our own power.
Our aim is precision.

Alchemist
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:38 pm

Post by Alchemist »

I wonder how this would look if the Heim equations were were applied to it.

In Heim theory all of the various "universal" forces are considered to be related to multi-spacial geometry and magnetism and gravity are (greatly simplified) two sides of the same coin.

The Sun is the single largest gravitational influence in our solar system, and solar storms can cause variations in the sun's gravitational field.

So let's assume that it's not simply "the sun" affecting the rate of nuclear decay but actually "variations in the sun's gravity."

Given Heim's theory that the geometric structure of the universe is responsible for all of the universal forces and that a change in a major gravity field would also constitute a small change in the universal geometry. If Earth was at a point close to the sun or the the gravity variation was strong enough then the distortion in universal geometry would have propagated out far enough from the sun to have minor influence on the strong and weak nuclear forces of elements here on Earth. If the change caused a minuscule increase in one of the forces there would have been no effect on stable elements, but radioactive elements would have shown a decrease in radioactivity.

Sounds plausible to me.

Damon Hill
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Auburn, WA

Post by Damon Hill »

A possible test of that theory would be the decay rate of RTGs used to power planetary probes as they traveled far from the Sun. Was a measurable variation in the power decay observed? I don't recall any mention of unexpected changes from them.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Yes Cassini.

Post by Helius »

Damon Hill wrote:A possible test of that theory would be the decay rate of RTGs used to power planetary probes as they traveled far from the Sun. Was a measurable variation in the power decay observed? I don't recall any mention of unexpected changes from them.
They looked at Cassini and found no variation. Cassini, as you remember got 2 gravity boosts from Venus and one from Earth, before getting one from Jupiter, and flying out to Saturn. It might be that the Plutonium in the battery is less effected, or the whole thing is bogus.



We certainly need many more careful measurements (and zero uncareful ones). http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/gravity-assists.cfm

Professor Science
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:51 pm

Post by Professor Science »

If it's a purely spatial relationship than that would be solid proof, but if it's a spatial relationship, in addition to a velocity relationship, then something in an unpowered orbit would behave the same way all the time, wouldn't it?
The pursuit of knowledge is in the best of interest of all mankind.

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

It's not really about "constants" not being constant. These guys have to ensure tidal effects don't do something to their detectors before they invoke neutrino interactions.

It'd be cool if there is a nuclear or weak force interaction, especially since neutrino's oscillate. But there are simpler reasons to work with first.

As for constants not being constant - that was proposed by Dirac some 40 years ago and is a requirement of the Big Bang theory. The assumption is that things are still changing, we just can't measure it.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Damon Hill wrote:A possible test of that theory would be the decay rate of RTGs used to power planetary probes as they traveled far from the Sun. Was a measurable variation in the power decay observed? I don't recall any mention of unexpected changes from them.
The Pioneer Anomaly?

Duane
Vae Victis

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

Seems like an obvious question/experiment: has anybody measured if radioactive decay is affected by rotational acceleration?

Anybody ever put some caesium in a centrifuge and measured decay?

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

The Pioneer anomaly is a ranging effect. But it could be we aren't measuring it correctly. And it could be that the tidal effects are not changing
the radioactive material, but they are changing the measuring equipment. A slight change in distance between detector and source might be in the range of .1% change in effective decay rate - the solid angle increases or decreases just enough to capture more or less decays. Kinda like 3 neutrons from a pulsed experiment telling you the total number of fusions actually occurring.

Torulf2
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:50 pm
Location: Swedem

Post by Torulf2 »

The measuring equipment may stay on a table or on something how change length from temperature. The outdoor temperature change during the year and the indoor temperature may not be constant.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

There exists detailed information on the Pioneer Anomaly on Wikipedia for those who would like a refresher. It unfortunately does not seem to describe the ranging system used for pioneer. As I recall it used range "ping" and Doppler. I don't remember if it was one way, or echo Doppler but I think echo. And didn't the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes carry Cesium clocks?

From Wikipedia -

The effect is seen in radio Doppler and ranging data, yielding information on the velocity and distance of the spacecraft. When all known forces acting on the spacecraft are taken into consideration, a very small but unexplained force remains. It appears to cause a constant sunward acceleration of (8.74 ± 1.33) × 10−10 m/s2 for both spacecraft. If the positions of the spacecraft are predicted one year in advance based on measured velocity and known forces (mostly gravity), they are actually found to be some 400 km closer to the sun at the end of the year. The magnitude of the Pioneer effect is numerically quite close to the product of the speed of light and the Hubble constant, but the significance of this, if any, is unknown. ....

Read a lot more, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Aero

Post Reply