If decay rates changed?

[RickG]

FYI, I thought this article was pretty timely.

Advance warning system for solar flares hinges on surprising hypotheses Apparently it's their hope to actually "predict" solar flare events this way, although it's not clear why it would work.

That has already been discussed in depth the past several pages. None of the observed isotopes are used in radiometric dating and those oscillations, not rate changes, are less than 1%; in one case hundredths of a percent. Additionally, if you read the actual published research, there are no claims made that radiometric dating is affected. Nevertheless, the young earth crowd will continue to play it up with much misinformation distorting what the actual research says, which being a Christian myself disturbs me. They are not only ignoring the 9th commandment, they are going out of their way to abuse it. My comfort is that God is their judge, not me.

 

[BobRyan]

If anyone here is familiar with the formulas behind this, can you please explain it to me in layman's terms? I recall hearing that decay rates of isotopes are tied to equations, and that if decay rates used to be higher in the past it messes things up in particle physics.

Obviously I can't quite explain what I'm after, or else I wouldn't need it explained to me. If you know what I'm getting at could you please help?

1. Decay rates are tied to the speed of light.
2. Decay rates are also impacted by neutrino concentration
A Neutrino Cataclysm?

An interesting question related to creationism and the Bible is - what happens if God had NOT created the crust of the earth to already have a certain percentage of radioactive element from the very start?

Tectonic plate movement vs viable atmosphere topics come to mind.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Michael]

That has already been discussed in depth the past several pages. None of the observed isotopes are used in radiometric dating and those oscillations, not rate changes, are less than 1%; in one case hundredths of a percent. Additionally, if you read the actual published research, there are no claims made that radiometric dating is affected. Nevertheless, the young earth crowd will continue to play it up with much misinformation distorting what the actual research says, which being a Christian myself disturbs me. They are not only ignoring the 9th commandment, they are going out of their way to abuse it. My comfort is that God is their judge, not me.

I hear you, and of course I also agree with you. I just think it's important to not *oversimplify* the issue, and to acknowledge that "minor" influences might apply. As you've pointed out, even seasonal changes are "averaged" over time, so that aspect is a non issue. Solar activity can have "small" external influences on the decay rates of at least *some* elements, but even these variations are relatively "minor" variations, that have little or no effect on our basic age estimations of Earth (billions of years old).

 

[RickG]

1. Decay rates are tied to the speed of light.

Decay rates have absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light. They have everything to do with the quantum makeup of each independent isotope.

2. Decay rates are also impacted by neutrino concentration
A Neutrino Cataclysm?

Try providing a link to a legitimate science source instead of a creationist site hidden inside the UNC computer science dept.

An interesting question related to creationism and the Bible is - what happens if God had NOT created the crust of the earth to already have a certain percentage of radioactive element from the very start?

Tectonic plate movement vs viable atmosphere topics come to mind.

With the exception of cosmogenic radionuclides, Radioactive elements are formed when they solidify from magma or through metamorphic events.

in Christ,

Rick

 

[Loudmouth]

Joe Meert has some fun with the heat produced by rapid radioactive decay. You can find the page here:

ROASTING ADAM-Creationism's Heat Problem

He gets a value of 65,000 degrees C/km. That is, if we went down just 1 km into the Earth it would be 65,000 degrees hotter than at the surface. The crust would melt. Noah wouldn't need to worry about a flood because no water could exist.

 

[BobRyan]

Decay rates have absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light. They have everything to do with the quantum makeup of each independent isotope.



Try providing a link to a legitimate science source instead of a creationist site

1. I keep forgetting that creationists are not supposed to know anything about science "by definition" - in the minds of those dedicated to blind-faith-evolutionism.

2. As we all know by now - Neutrino interaction with the nucleus - is proven science my friend. Too late to imagine that it does not exist.
Overview of Neutrino–Nucleus Interactions (J. L. HERRAIZ) - Academia.edu

Supposing that such an interaction is not possible with unstable isotopes is more fiction than I care to entertain on the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jamin4422]

1. I keep forgetting that creationists are not supposed to know anything about science "by definition" - in the minds of those dedicated to blind-faith-evolutionism.

Just like in the minds of Creationists the theory of evolution is dead and evolutionists have not come to that realization yet.

 

[RickG]

1. I keep forgetting that creationists are not supposed to know anything about science "by definition" - in the minds of those dedicated to blind-faith-evolutionism.

Besides the fact that evolution has nothing to do with this thread topic, statements like "blind-faith-evloutionism", is hardly a constructive contribution to a discussion in a physical science forum. How about we stick to the science.

2. As we all know by now - Neutrino interaction with the nucleus - is proven science my friend. Too late to imagine that it does not exist.
Overview of Neutrino–Nucleus Interactions (J. L. HERRAIZ) - Academia.edu

Supposing that such an interaction is not possible with unstable isotopes is more fiction than I care to entertain on the subject.

I gather you are attempting to make a case that the paper you linked is problematic for radiometric dating. I just read the paper and fail to see any connection whatsoever.


in Christ,

Rick

 

[BobRyan]

Besides the fact that evolution has nothing to do with this thread topic, statements like "blind-faith-evloutionism", is hardly a constructive contribution to a discussion in a physical science forum. How about we stick to the science.

I gather you are attempting to make a case that the paper you linked is problematic for radiometric dating. I just read the paper and fail to see any connection whatsoever.

No -- it is problematic for those who want to imagine that a storm of neutrinos can have no interaction with atomic nuclei and rates of decay. (That winter - summer thing comes to mind)

The OP simply asked about things that can affect radioactive rates of decay.

Just saying "no" to everything is not the panacea of a solution some would like to suppose.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[Loudmouth]

1. I keep forgetting that creationists are not supposed to know anything about science "by definition" - in the minds of those dedicated to blind-faith-evolutionism.

Evolution has nothing to do with decay rates or the physics involved.

2. As we all know by now - Neutrino interaction with the nucleus - is proven science my friend. Too late to imagine that it does not exist.
Overview of Neutrino–Nucleus Interactions (J. L. HERRAIZ) - Academia.edu

Supposing that such an interaction is not possible with unstable isotopes is more fiction than I care to entertain on the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

You still have a problem with the massive amount of heat produced by increasing the decay rates. No matter how each decay is produced, it still produces energy. If decay rates increased as much as creationists propose then the Earth would be completely molten. There could be no life.

 

[RickG]

No -- it is problematic for those who want to imagine that a storm of neutrinos can have no interaction with atomic nuclei and rates of decay. (That winter - summer thing comes to mind)

It is not a matter of winter or summer, it is a matter of where the earth is in its "elliptical" orbit around the sun. Keep in mind that us folks in the northern hemisphere are having summer when the earth is at its furthest point from the sun and winter when it is closest. The opposite is true in the southern hemisphere.

Now, let's look at reality. I agree that neutrinos do have an effect on certain radionuclides. What is blown out of proportion by the young earth proponents is by how much, over what period and what isotopes are involved.

Reality #1. Be7 was shown to vary 0.015%, 60Co was shown to vary 0.015%, and 226Ra was shown to vary 0.10% - 0.26%. Those are extraordinarily small values.

Reality #2. Those variations are oscillations as previously stated by you due to the distance between the earth and sun. Decay rates are determined over long periods of time which average any such oscillation out and are checked and rechecked constantly. Every so many years, some decay rate standards do get changed due to more precise observation of those rates.

Reality #3. None of those radionuclides are used in radiometric dating.

The OP simply asked about things that can affect radioactive rates of decay.

True, and it is very important to keep any observed changes in context. None of the observed changes would change any radiometric date. Keep in mind that radiometric dates are reported with statistical degrees of uncertainty which are usually +/- 2% or less. The greatest variation reported was only0.25%.

And here is the actual paper on the decay rates: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.5383v1.pdf

Just saying "no" to everything is not the panacea of a solution some would like to suppose.

I totally agree.

in Christ,
Rick

 

[Illuminaughty]

I was watching an episode of Through The Wormhole today and the program said radioactive decay rates do appear to vary ever so slightly in certain circumstances.

Found an article on the Perdue University website on this too:

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Radioactive decay rates, thought to be unique physical constants and counted on in such fields as medicine and anthropology, may be more variable than once thought.


A 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.


This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth's orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun, Jenkins said.

"If the relationship between solar activity and decay rates proves to be true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space," Jenkins said. "Finding that the decay rates fluctuate in a pattern that matches known and theoretical solar frequencies is compelling evidence for a solar influence on decay rates."
​

None of the scientists used this to arbitrarily pretend the universe is only 7000 years old though.

 

[RickG]

I was watching an episode of Through The Wormhole today and the program said radioactive decay rates do appear to vary ever so slightly in certain circumstances.

Found an article on the Perdue University website on this too:

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. - Radioactive decay rates, thought to be unique physical constants and counted on in such fields as medicine and anthropology, may be more variable than once thought.


A 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.


This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth's orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun, Jenkins said.

"If the relationship between solar activity and decay rates proves to be true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space," Jenkins said. "Finding that the decay rates fluctuate in a pattern that matches known and theoretical solar frequencies is compelling evidence for a solar influence on decay rates."
​

None of the scientists used this to arbitrarily pretend the universe is only 7000 years old though.

Those ever so slight variations have been observed for quite some time. Decay or radionuclides is expotential and random but occur at a constant rate. It is only within the past several years that scientists have noticed that those perturbations are in part related to neutrino intensity, thus the value of predicting solar flares.

Again, contrary to what Doveman and BobRyan suggest, the actual rates do not change over long periods of time. For instance, the decay rate of 7Be over the course of one revolution of the earth around the sun shown on a graph would resemble a sine wave. Average those perturbations over a ten year period and the sine wave becomes a straight line. That is the point I am trying to bring to light. They act as if that phenomena invalidates radiometric dating. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to that, I have also mentioned several times that none of the observed oscillating radionuclides are used in radiometric dating anyway. It is just incredible what some people will try to make out of something and continue to cling to it when they have been show over and over in the scientific literature that they are not only wrong, but the people presenting those ideas to them (creationist literature) are in fact deliberately being dishonest.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Again, contrary to what Doveman and BobRyan suggest, the actual rates do not change over long periods of time. For instance, the decay rate of 7Be over the course of one revolution of the earth around the sun shown on a graph would resemble a sine wave. Average those perturbations over a ten year period and the sine wave becomes a straight line. That is the point I am trying to bring to light.

I see. I didn't say that because I thought it supported creationism I just thought it was interesting. I agree it would make no sense to imply that this proved a 7000 year old universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I see. I didn't say that because I thought it supported creationism I just thought it was interesting. I agree it would make no sense to imply that this proved a 7000 year old universe.

It's the core fallacy of Creationism: "If we can disprove evolution/deep time/ the big bang/abortion, that'll prove Creationism/Christianity!"

 

[Michael]

It's the core fallacy of Creationism: "If we can disprove evolution/deep time/ the big bang/abortion, that'll prove Creationism/Christianity!"

Yep. That fallacy began with attacks on Carbon 14 dating, when YEC's would fixate on one or two "botched" experiments, while ignoring the 100,000 correctly done experiments.

Typically the 'evidence' that supports one theory tends to falsify the others. That's typically the case with radiometric dating techniques. They tend to point us toward an ancient Earth, and they tend to undermine a YEC viewpoint. The YEC therefore feels compelled to take shots at the technique and look for weaknesses in the technique as an excuse to toss out those 100,000 correctly done tests that all tend to confirm that we live on an ancient Earth. What I typically don't find is direct evidence presented by YEC that supports YEC and stands up to any serious scrutiny.

While the radiometric dating techniques could in theory vary a bit due to solar variations, the variation is *tiny*, it's averaged out in most cases anyway, and in no way would these tiny variations support YEC. The small variations only demonstrate that there is a link between solar influences and decay rates here on Earth in *some* elements. It really doesn't affect the radiometric dating techniques all that significantly and in most cases the seasonal effects are averaged out anyway, so it's not clear they have any effect at all on the actual results.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yep. That fallacy began with attacks on Carbon 14 dating, when YEC's would fixate on one or two "botched" experiments, while ignoring the 100,000 correctly done experiments.

Half the time they weren't even botched, they didn't work for well-understood reasons, like the Resevoir effect. It irks me when they have the depth of human knowledge at their fingertips, and they don't bother to do a bit of fact checking. Grr!

Typically the 'evidence' that supports one theory tends to falsify the others. That's typically the case with radiometric dating techniques. They tend to point us toward an ancient Earth, and they tend to undermine a YEC viewpoint. The YEC therefore feels compelled to take shots as the technique and look for weaknesses in the technique as an excuse to toss out those 100,000 correctly done tests that all tend to confirm that we live on an ancient Earth.

While the techniques in question could in theory vary a bit due to solar variations, the variation is *tiny*, it's averaged out in most cases anyway, and in no way would these tiny variations support YEC. The small variations only demonstrate that there is a link between solar influences and decay rates here on Earth in *some* elements. It really doesn't affect the radiometric dating techniques all that significantly and in most cases the seasonal effects are averaged out anyway, so it's not clear they have any effect at all on the actual results.

And if radiometric decay rates are wildly variable, there's still the bigger issue of why all these dates correlate perfectly, no matter what technique you use (provided it's done right).

 

[Michael]

And if radiometric decay rates are wildly variable, there's still the bigger issue of why all these dates correlate perfectly, no matter what technique you use (provided it's done right).

I have never really even understood the use of the Bible to support a YEC position, mostly because the largest sect of Christianity embraces an ancient Earth, and nowhere in the Bible does the Bible claim to be the sole source of scientific information that is relevant and useful.

What I've never seen is a direct empirical piece of evidence, or any reference outside of the Bible as a resource, that actually supports YEC and holds up to any scrutiny. Sooner or later one must have to stop and ask themseves: Why not?

 

[Illuminaughty]

And if radiometric decay rates are wildly variable, there's still the bigger issue of why all these dates correlate perfectly, no matter what technique you use (provided it's done right).

Demonically inspired coincidence?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What I've never seen is a direct empirical piece of evidence, or any reference outside of the Bible as a resource, that actually supports YEC and holds up to any scrutiny. Sooner or later one must have to stop and ask themseves: Why not?

It's all a big conspiracy perpetrated by those darn atheist evos because they can't handle the truth!
/getoffmylawn