Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun?

The Physics Arxiv Blog ^ | August 29th, 2008 | KFC

[null and void]

However, I've never heard of the heat effect on time, unless they mean due to an increase in kinetic energy?

Eh? Einstein himself explained it:

"How long 5 minutes is depends on whether you are kissing a pretty girl or sitting on a stove!"

[null and void]

The suggestion of a seasonal variation in the fine structure constant is completely cracked. Take it from me.

Yeah! Who ya gonna believe?

The theory, or your own lyin' data!

[null and void]

Olive oil presses.

Dammit! I went into plastics semiconductors!

[MrB]

I note that Schrödinger doesn’t look like he’s all there...

How can you tell? :)

[null and void]

In the simplest terms, it has to do with the exact amount of ‘matter’ in the universe.

And that the universe is expanding so that distant radiation is doppler shifted so far down in wavelength/energy that we can't even see it.

[null and void]

Naaaahhh,

The real bullet is that he could have become Jimmuh Carter!

[null and void]

If we can/could follow it to the end, there are no particles, and there is no physics. Its all G-d’s (the creator) dream.

That's very Buddhist...

[null and void]

He’s just about the only one whose coat is a pale shadow...

[null and void]

Thales.

Thanks. I learned something useful today!

[UCANSEE2]

I had a feeling you already ‘knew’ what I was talking about.

: )

[UCANSEE2]

““But I’m not moving closer to the Sun, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

And I’m not moving farther away, either. “

---

On a nice sunny day, leave your air-conditioned leaving room, and climb up on the roof.

You would be amazed at the increase in temperature!

And that is only a few feet of difference.

(I’m just being a goof!)

[dr_lew]

It’s been said, “When a theorist publishes his results, no one believes them but the theorist. When an experimenter publishes a result, everybody believes it except the experimenter.” (’cuz he knows what can go wrong, you see. )

The data, taken at face value, suggest a seasonal variation in the measured decay rates. One of the suggested explanations was a seasonal variation in the fine structure constant, which governs all E-M interactions, including atomic spectral lines. Variations approaching 0.1% in its value would cause havoc in all kinds of routine measurements, not to mention capricious variation in the familiar properties of matter, which in actuality are exquisitely and reliably constant.

What about spectral lines in the Sun’s atmosphere? What is alpha when you’re ON the Sun. It’s ridiculous!

On a discussion group, I saw a comment that this result would be worth several Nobel prizes, if correct. This understates the case considerably. It would be the end of modern physics as we know it, tantamount to “yarn world” in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy ... anything goes!

[null and void]

The data, taken at face value

If you torture the data enough, it will confess.

IMHO, most likely explanation? Measurement error. Some systematic variation in the equipment that is a function of ambient temperature might suffice. Even the old standard meter bar had a slight seasonal variation in length, despite exquisitely careful temperature control.

How did they measure the radiation? Geiger tubes? Do the tubes have a minuscule dimensional change with atmospheric pressure? Seasonally lower barometric readings could cause a very slight change in each tube's capture volume.

On a discussion group, I saw a comment that this result would be worth several Nobel prizes, if correct.

Perhaps. Depending on the explanation, of course.

Still, it would be way kewl if everything we knew about physics is wrong!

[rlmorel]

LOL...good post!

[rlmorel]

"...How long 5 minutes is depends on whether you are kissing a pretty girl or sitting on a stove!..."

Might have to make that my new tagline...