Happy Atheist Forum

I thought this would be an interesting tidbit for an atheist forum.

Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest in evidence that radioactive decay rates vary with time.  The evidence isn't bullet-proof but it's rather interesting.  Here's a recent article:

http://www.physorg.com/news202456660.html (http://www.physorg.com/news202456660.html)

QuoteA team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core.

The fluctuations appear to be very small but could lead to predictive tools for solar flares and may have an impact on medical radiation treatments.

But of course, other folks have jumped in and figured out a different reason to be excited...

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240426 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240426)

QuoteIt has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years? Once again we see accurate scientific evidence in complete agreement with a straightforward reading of biblical history (Butt, 2002).

Go ahead, read the whole article.  Do your own research.  And then ponder...how in the world do they jump to such conclusions?!?!

Quote from: "madness"And then ponder...how in the world do they jump to such conclusions?!?!

It is a basis by which to claim evidence because they know faith is valueless.

Even if there are variabilities... So what? The scientists will adjust the calculations to the new models and we are golden!  

This is pretty cool (and I'll ignore the creationist interpretation, as it doesn't deserve anyone's time).

Both the isotopes mentioned break down via beta decay. That would lend support to the idea that it might be a neutrino effect, because neutrinos are produced by beta decay. However, another study http://arxivblog.com/?p=596 mentions Ra-226, which decays by alpha emission. That is both even more exciting and harder to believe.

Alpha and beta decay are pretty different. Alpha decay is due to quantum tunneling of an alpha particle out of a nucleus. Beta decay is the transformation of a down quark to an up quark inside a neutron. How in the world could one effect cause a similar change in both of these modes of decay?

It's very exciting if it is true. I think, though, that with two decay modes giving similar results, the most likely cause might be that there's something wrong with the experiment. But I could be wrong.

I found a really good, skeptical but not dismissive, article about this effect: http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw147.html

Anyway, great stuff.

Quote from: "ablprop"However, another study http://arxivblog.com/?p=596 mentions Ra-226, which decays by alpha emission. That is both even more exciting and harder to believe.[/url]

The key here though is that they didn't simply measure the alphas from Ra-226.  They measured gammas emitted by a Ra-226 source that was 'old' and therefore can assumed to be in secular equilibrium with all of its daughter products...many of which are beta decay.  So it could easily be the case that the alpha decay was unaffected but the beta decay created the oscillation.

How much of a +/- are we talking about in terms of time difference?  For instance, obviously billions of years would not be compressed into thousands of years instead....Is it more accurate to say that it would be more like 4.23875 billion years turns into 4.23869 billion years?

Quote from: "DropLogic"How much of a +/- are we talking about in terms of time difference?  For instance, obviously billions of years would not be compressed into thousands of years instead....Is it more accurate to say that it would be more like 4.23875 billion years turns into 4.23869 billion years?

Ding, ding, ding.  That's the part the creationists conveniently leave out.  The difference, first of all, is an oscillation - it goes both + and - equally.  That probably means that there would be no change at all to telling the age of object..  And if it did, it would only be by about 0.1%-0.3%.  

But I do have to admit that the creationist could have a point.  If it really is neutrinos from the sun that are changing decay rates, then if the amount of neutrinos had changed drastically over the eons, then we could have an issue dating objects...but not from billions to thousands of years!  I don't know how much the neutrino flux could have changed, but I don't think it would be a huge percent.  Something to look in to...

Quote from: "madness"I thought this would be an interesting tidbit for an atheist forum.

Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest in evidence that radioactive decay rates vary with time.  The evidence isn't bullet-proof but it's rather interesting.  Here's a recent article:

http://www.physorg.com/news202456660.html (http://www.physorg.com/news202456660.html)
....snip...

I remember those couple of studies, by the same folks - no one has been able to reproduce their findings.

Quote from: "Squid"I remember those couple of studies, by the same folks - no one has been able to reproduce their findings.

Implying that they are finding what they want to find..?  

Quote from: "madness"The key here though is that they didn't simply measure the alphas from Ra-226.  They measured gammas emitted by a Ra-226 source that was 'old' and therefore can assumed to be in secular equilibrium with all of its daughter products...many of which are beta decay.  So it could easily be the case that the alpha decay was unaffected but the beta decay created the oscillation.

Ah, I missed that part. Thanks for the clarification. Still seems mildly unlikely, but not so much so.