Thanks for the link Gyuri - interesting info. Oh well - I'm retired now so little to become bothered with on my part - the younger ones are having their turn now.
From the article: ""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."
Sorta reminds me of the mental and emotional processes going on inside of 17 Y/O granddaughters head.
From the article: ""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."
Sorta reminds me of the mental and emotional processes going on inside of 17 Y/O granddaughters head.
Well I guess since it appears that what they have found is cyclical (on a 33 day cycle) and carbon dating is over millions of years, then provided average decay rate has remained constant over time then the carbon 14 dating should still work within the limitations of accuracy that it already had...
If however the the emissions from the sun are having the described effect, and these emissions have been getting greater or lesser over time then it is feasible that carbon dating estimates could be out by a larger than anticipated margin
Tony.
If however the the emissions from the sun are having the described effect, and these emissions have been getting greater or lesser over time then it is feasible that carbon dating estimates could be out by a larger than anticipated margin
Tony.
The article says nothing about the extent of impact.
Probably it cause only minimal difference.
After all, if it were otherwise, it would have been discovered.
This is not the essence of the thing.
Thomas found it he cited lines.
"What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
So here the reason and not the caused effect the really interesting one.
In physics it can be lead to far to find the cause.
This perhaps deserves Nobel Prize.
Gyuri
Probably it cause only minimal difference.
After all, if it were otherwise, it would have been discovered.
This is not the essence of the thing.
Thomas found it he cited lines.
"What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
So here the reason and not the caused effect the really interesting one.
In physics it can be lead to far to find the cause.
This perhaps deserves Nobel Prize.
Gyuri
Well, it seems to me, from this it certainly will not be a Nobel Prize.
What a shame.
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf
And whether this will be the same because of the speed of neutrinos?
What a shame.
http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf
And whether this will be the same because of the speed of neutrinos?
That's the nature of doing science: if you're wrong and it's important, people will figure it out. And it's OK to be wrong, that's how progress is made.
Thanks for the link. I'm amused to see that the research was funded by DHS; I can only imagine how the grant proposal tied this in to Homeland Security.
Thanks for the link. I'm amused to see that the research was funded by DHS; I can only imagine how the grant proposal tied this in to Homeland Security.
This must have been going for a while now. Gyuri's second link is two years older than the first.
I'm not a physicist nor do I have a clue about what I am about to share. Bear with me.
The random nature of each individual atom deciding when to divide could be influenced by what is going on around it. I think the half life law confirms that.
A big lump of material sends out roughly twice as many indicators of a divide occurrence than a lump with half that amount of material in a fixed time period (the Half Life).
But each individual atom does not know how many other atoms are in the lump. The atoms fire off as if they knew they were part of a big lump or a small lump, otherwise there would be a tendency for all the atoms to divide at the same time. The rate of division would become random. But we know that the rate of division is controlled by the size, or number of neigbours to each individual atom.
The atom divide occasion is completely random. I'd suggest it isn't random. The divide is influenced by the other particles (parts of atoms) to let it fire off. Maybe some other non atomic particles can affect the timing of the divide.
Let's stretch this a bit further. Suppose when the atom that is preparing to fire off, is becoming less stable. The orbits of the bits and pieces of what makes up the atom are bouncing off or influencing each other in a less predictable manner.
Should an external particle have any influence on this instability that is increasing up to the time of divide? With my lack of knowledge, I cannot see see why an external particle should not have an influence on the stability of the atom's structure. The arrival of an extra particle could help stabilise the structure or do the opposite, destabilise (promote increased instability). These two different effects could either delay or bring forward the random divide that was about to happen.
It's much like the effect of increasing the mass of material until it becomes critical (self sustaining at firing off each other) so that we get a continuous and much increased rate of heat. The Half Life no longer applies because the adjacent atoms influence the atoms nearby and they fire off early.
Does anyone feel inclined to develop this using real PHYSICS AS A BASIS?
The random nature of each individual atom deciding when to divide could be influenced by what is going on around it. I think the half life law confirms that.
A big lump of material sends out roughly twice as many indicators of a divide occurrence than a lump with half that amount of material in a fixed time period (the Half Life).
But each individual atom does not know how many other atoms are in the lump. The atoms fire off as if they knew they were part of a big lump or a small lump, otherwise there would be a tendency for all the atoms to divide at the same time. The rate of division would become random. But we know that the rate of division is controlled by the size, or number of neigbours to each individual atom.
The atom divide occasion is completely random. I'd suggest it isn't random. The divide is influenced by the other particles (parts of atoms) to let it fire off. Maybe some other non atomic particles can affect the timing of the divide.
Let's stretch this a bit further. Suppose when the atom that is preparing to fire off, is becoming less stable. The orbits of the bits and pieces of what makes up the atom are bouncing off or influencing each other in a less predictable manner.
Should an external particle have any influence on this instability that is increasing up to the time of divide? With my lack of knowledge, I cannot see see why an external particle should not have an influence on the stability of the atom's structure. The arrival of an extra particle could help stabilise the structure or do the opposite, destabilise (promote increased instability). These two different effects could either delay or bring forward the random divide that was about to happen.
It's much like the effect of increasing the mass of material until it becomes critical (self sustaining at firing off each other) so that we get a continuous and much increased rate of heat. The Half Life no longer applies because the adjacent atoms influence the atoms nearby and they fire off early.
Does anyone feel inclined to develop this using real PHYSICS AS A BASIS?
Last edited:
I'm not a nuclear physicist but many years ago I did do some research in particle physics. I remember reading about this solar effect on nuclear decay a year or so ago. I am surprised that people seem so surprised. Given that beta decay normally involves emitting a neutrino I would not be at all surprised to find that some decays involve absorbing a neutrino, or are affected by neutrinos acting as a catalyst (or anti-catalyst). To a Feynman diagram, emitting a particle and absorbing the corresponding antiparticle are the same thing. Maybe it acts a bit like chemistry, where an excess of the outputs from a reaction can drive it the other way or at least slow it down a bit.
Its not clear to me yet, but I'm a bit out of touch. I always assumed that n and anti-n were different, because they were postulated to balance up lepton numbers in beta decay and muon decay. If a muon n is the same as a muon anti-n then I can't see why they are needed to balance things up (apart from sorting out momentum conservation). Then I heard, to my surprise, that they could be their own antiparticle. There is a group at my old university working with the Japs on this sort of thing, and I heard a report from them at an alumni open day last year.
PS just found this discussion. It starts off easy but quickly gets complicated! It seems the issue is related to 'handedness', because the weak interaction knows the difference between left and right (or, equivalently, clockwise and anticlockwise). I used to understand this stuff 30 years ago!
PPS see this too. Also here
PS just found this discussion. It starts off easy but quickly gets complicated! It seems the issue is related to 'handedness', because the weak interaction knows the difference between left and right (or, equivalently, clockwise and anticlockwise). I used to understand this stuff 30 years ago!
PPS see this too. Also here
Last edited:
ah, KEK/jparc. Just gave a presentation to some of them. May be doin woik for them in a coupla months.
Next time they come over, maybe I'll ask about this. I give no guarantee that I'll understand the answer...
Oh, almost forgot..the earthquake shifted many of the magnets in the proton ring (it's used to smack a target and produce neutrinos, aimed at the superK neutrino detector.) They have to re-align all the magnets before they can run again..
cheers, jn
Last edited:
Yes, that's it - KEK. I couldn't remember the name. I believe they are trying to measure one or more of the neutrino mixing angles.
I remember on our open day being shown around my old department by a French girl (PhD student) who was about to pack her bags for a year in Japan. I wonder how much data she got before the earthquake moved things about.
I remember on our open day being shown around my old department by a French girl (PhD student) who was about to pack her bags for a year in Japan. I wonder how much data she got before the earthquake moved things about.
I must say - it is my privilege to see the all of you kids with the big brains discussing this "matter".
Buuuuut - my brain is much - much smaller - and thus my thoughts considerably less insightful.
For me it all boils down to this. If I can squeeze out a bit more information that ordinary audiophiles will listen to and nod their head as if they had a clue, then I should be able to come out with a line of speaker cables that have been treated to be resistant to solar flare interaction by having their neutrinos balanced and thus resistant to decay.
Hey - if cryogenic treatment sells stuff I'm figuring that cables treated with this technology should fly off the shelf!!!
I will need some volunteers to participate in some subjective listening test - and no fair looking at the cables that are being cooled by liquid nitrogen.
Annnnnnnd now back to the topic....
Buuuuut - my brain is much - much smaller - and thus my thoughts considerably less insightful.
For me it all boils down to this. If I can squeeze out a bit more information that ordinary audiophiles will listen to and nod their head as if they had a clue, then I should be able to come out with a line of speaker cables that have been treated to be resistant to solar flare interaction by having their neutrinos balanced and thus resistant to decay.
Hey - if cryogenic treatment sells stuff I'm figuring that cables treated with this technology should fly off the shelf!!!
I will need some volunteers to participate in some subjective listening test - and no fair looking at the cables that are being cooled by liquid nitrogen.
Annnnnnnd now back to the topic....
Well I guess since it appears that what they have found is cyclical (on a 33 day cycle) and carbon dating is over millions of years, then provided average decay rate has remained constant over time then the carbon 14 dating should still work within the limitations of accuracy that it already had...
If however the the emissions from the sun are having the described effect, and these emissions have been getting greater or lesser over time then it is feasible that carbon dating estimates could be out by a larger than anticipated margin
Tony.
the sun has a 33 day rotational period.
A potential is that we are dealing with so called longitudinal or scalar waves and and underlying fundament to reality, ie, extra dimensional. dark matter. Etc.
Then add in the 'electric universe' model, with the sun as a focal point of electrical interaction, and then you begin to see the potentials for an explanation - taking shape.
I have an eagle research branded ER1600 Brown's gas generator.
It WILL I repeat WILL break down ALL radioactive substances, with one single pass of the material (DUT) being brought to the liquidus state, via the Brown's gas flame.
The flame is not of a gaseous interactive nature, it is a electrical flame. It is a pure electrical plasma 'matter in atomic breakdown/shift' type charge or flame. The 'flame' of a brown's gas or 'Rhodes' gas, is electrical in nature and works atomically, at the quantum-to-quantum interactive level.
The resting state temperature of the 'flame' will be about 250 degrees, but it will appear to be whatever temperature is required to interact with whatever material which is being sublimated.(propagation rate is 8900M per second)
Ie, it will not even boil water....but it will sublimate tungsten.
It is a complex affair in some ways, but when you understand what it is actually doing, it becomes very simple. It will take any material and bring it into an orbitally shifted conductive state, and will do whatever it takes to get there, no matter what the atomic structure is.
Which is why it is known as a 'forbidden science' as it leads to many explanations on the nature of reality and matter/time-space.
As an example, this post will cause me trouble. Simply as I have told you folks some things.. that some people..do not want you to know. Those who wish to maintain monopolies in science with regard to black ops and societal controls. Ie, unwanted undesirable steering committees who operate in secret for their own benefit only.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.