Posted on 09/02/2008 8:14:57 PM PDT by B-Chan
Here’s an interesting conundrum involving nuclear decay rates.
We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).
So that makes it hard to explain the curious periodic variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 observed by groups at the Brookhaven National Labs in the US and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesandstalt in Germany in the 1980s.
Today, the story gets even more puzzling. Jere Jenkins and pals at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data from these experiments and say that the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earth’s distance from the sun. (Both groups, in acts of selfless dedication, measured the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 over a period of many years.)
In other words, there appears to be an annual variation in the decay rates of these elements.
Jenkins and co put forward two theories to explain why this might be happening.
First, they say a theory developed by John Barrow at the University of Cambridge in the UK and Douglas Shaw at the University of London, suggests that the sun produces a field that changes the value of the fine structure constant on Earth as its distance from the sun varies during each orbit. Such an effect would certainly cause the kind of an annual variation in decay rates that Jenkins and co highlight.
I think you meant to say, clocks can tick at different rates depending on their rate of motion relative to a stationary outside observer (the outside observer detects the change in time, not the one traveling, and vise versa: both can consider themselves stationary and the other moving, assuming the relative rate of motion is constant and straight line). Or by a strong gravitational field (clocks do tick more slowly when closer to the Earth's surface, and also along the equator due to the slightly more rapid rotational velocity of the Earth there). However, I've never heard of the heat effect on time, unless they mean due to an increase in kinetic energy?
And even more in particle-wave duality land. Quantum mechanics is almost as nuts as the people who study it! (joking, I love the subject)
I have a fix for it. Time seems to stop for the boy for a few seconds.
/johnny
I should have been clearer.
And, you are, of course, correct as well.
Just like Earthquakes, there is no ONE factor that causes Earthquakes.
The moon used to be much closer to the Earth, than it is now.
The Earth has not always been in an elliptical orbit, nor has it’s apihelion, and perihelion been stable.
Neither has it’s tilt, nor it’s wobble, nor has the magnetic pole stayed in the same place for very long.
(and I know you know all this, too.)
My main point is that many people (in North America) think the Earth is closer to the Sun in summer, and further away in winter.
Because they don’t truly understand the various effects in play that cause the varying overall (global?) temperature ranges on various parts of our planet.
Many people think that when it’s cloudy, that the sun isn’t shining on the Earth, or that when it’s dark, the Sun isn’t shining on the Earth.
Of course, many do not even understand the real reason it is even dark, at night.
The suggestion of a seasonal variation in the fine structure constant is completely cracked. Take it from me.
“That’s why I said I’m content with the Earth’s rotation around the Sun,”
Good. Because, if you change it, we’re screwed.
: )
Because the sun is on the other side of the planet? Do I win a prize?
/johnny
I agree with JRandomFreeper.
But I think there are more factors.
Time(not redundant, as one might think), distance, gravity, and heat.
Add to that, attitude, drugs, memory ability, environment, (including other people).
I assure you, FIVE MINUTES when you are busy, busy, busy, is nothing like FIVE MINUTES sitting absolutely still, watching the clock count it off.
: )
Time can be very relative, especially if you have your relatives visiting for the weekend.
/johnny
I read a paper earlier this year that suggested the “density of something” changes with distance from the Sun. I took the data points the person used (from the Pioneer 10/11 data) and they fit an inverse square curve perfectly. I put the data points into a spreadsheet and extrapolated them inward and outward. You don’t get much change in the “density of something” with the relatively small distance changes with our elliptic orbit. The changes noted in the report are at the maximum and minimum distances the earth is from the Sun.
To which Socrates(? - one of those Greek guys, anyways) went out, cornered the market on olive oil presses, and made a killing, just to prove the smart a$$e$ wrong. After doing so, he returned to his life of simple poverty.
And interesting fact is that, in the southern hemisphere, the Sun IS closer to the Sun during its summer time. From what I understand, the reason that it doesn't get much warmer there during this time is because there is more ocean surface in the southern hemisphere and water tends to reflect sunshine better than land. Of course, in southern hemisphere winter, then, the Earth is *further* away. So are their winters generally colder than the northern hemisphere winters? I have no idea.
Many people think that when it’s cloudy, that the sun isn’t shining on the Earth, or that when it’s dark, the Sun isn’t shining on the Earth. Of course, many do not even understand the real reason it is even dark, at night.
LOL! You ain't far from the truth there!
“Because the sun is on the other side of the planet? “
Good guess, but not what I was talking about.
The ‘question’ refers to why (when the spot on the Earth ‘you’ are standing on, is facing away from the Sun), is the sky dark at all?
In the simplest terms, it has to do with the exact amount of ‘matter’ in the universe.
I think you can find articles that will go into more detail than I could, especially this late at night (I’m going to bed after I finish this post), by GOOGLING, “why is it dark at night”.
Ping for later when not so tired %>}
/johnny
Right, because if the decay rates are effected only seasonally, I can't see how it would have anything to do with fundamental changes in the value of any universal 'constant'. (recall the Hubble 'Constant' is no longer believed to be constant -the expansion rate of the universe is now thought to be increasing over time)
pffft... fence sitter
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.