Physicists are looking hard at the idea that radioactive decay rates are not constant, but are subject to outside influence. They are even looking to develop a practical application that could save the lives of future space explorers.
Since 1986, conscientious, if skeptical, scientists have kept records showing that the decay of certain radionuclides varies with the seasons. Specifically, David Alburger of the Brookhaven National Laboratory discovered that silicon-32 and chlorine-36 decayed at rates that varied about 0.3 percent between summer and winter. A team of German researchers found that radium-226 had a similar variation in its decay rate. The scientists involved could never accept their findings as real, but kept the records nevertheless, perhaps hoping that future reviewers would help track down the source of what they remained convinced was their error. (Madame Marie Curie similarly supposed that her measurement of the total energy output from pitchblende was in error when the total output was twice that obtained from its known constituent radioactive elements, chiefly uranium and thorium. Further, and rather strenuous, investigation over a four-year period led to the first crystallization of radium.)
In December of 2006, Jenkins and Fischbach noticed a decline in the decay of manganese-54 associated with a solar flare--and in fact the decline began a day and a half in advance of the flare. This, according to the Stanford News Service, might form the basis of a warning sensor that could alert the crew of a deep-space exploration mission (for example, to Mars or beyond) that a solar flare was imminent. (Protection from solar flares is theoretically possible, but receiving sufficient warning of a flare to avoid permanent and irreversible cellular injury remains a problem.)
Jenkins and Fischbach also re-examined the Brookhaven data and verified the seasonal variation. More recently, Peter Sturrock, professor emeritus of physics at Stanford University, suggested to Jenkins and Fischbach that they examine whether the radioactive decay rates varied with the period of the rotation of the sun. His reasoning: the flux of solar neutrinos, the particle that Jenkins and Fischbach held responsible for the variation, is known to vary with the sun's rotation. Jenkins and Fischbach soon found that the decay rates varied according to a 33-day cycle, significantly longer than the 28-day rotation of the sun's surface. Their conclusion was that the sun's core rotates at 33 days, and is the source of the neutrino flux.
This is the strongest challenge yet to the conventional notion that radioactive decay rates never vary. If neutrinos (or, as the Stanford report asks, another, hitherto unknown particle) can affect radioactive decay, what other influences could affect it? This is not likely to explain the findings of vast quantities of decay products that have given rise to the tremendous estimates of the age of the earth; the Global Flood and its associated earthquakes probably explain that better. But it might force a re-examination of radiometric dating of once-living things using the carbon-14 method. Those dates might be considerably wide of the mark on account of an unknown number of solar flares between the death of the organism being sampled and the present day. More to the point, the notion that radioactive day rates are variable is a direct blow to the heart of the conventional case for an old earth, because it forces a re-examination of every premise that uses radiometric dating as its basis.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
Nobody claims that radioactive decay rates never vary, the issue is by how much. Scientists have tried to speed up decay by subjecting materials to extreme pressures and temperatures, and while it does have an effect, it wouldn't be enough to change dates by a significant amount. It's also worth noting that nuclear power stations up and down the country are also based on evil "evolutionist assumptions" re radioactive decay rates, so if Terry is correct, it may be worth getting your umbrella. And possibly praying. But then since his last article claimed that science doesn't work and nothing real is verifiable and the laws of physics can change at whim at a moments notice, perhaps we should all get our umbrellas out anyway.
How many strawmen do you want to create Terry? Radioactive decay rates were presumed to be constant because they appeared to be until someone showed that they were not. You really must get away from your inability to see science as anything other than a dogma.
The variation is too small to alter Carbon 14 dating and certainly less than the variations in N14 to C14 production in the atmosphere (which are well known due to dendrochronology).
So radiometric measurements are not wide of the mark and does not invalidate the 4.6 billion year old Earth or provide support for a young Earth.
Niick and Martin, both of you attack without provocation. Niick no one ever said that evolutionists assumptions were evil. Your adding of that word adds a note of extremism to something that is not even remotely extreme. Terry is just pointing out a scientific point that supports creationism. Martin, I don't remember Terry saying anything about science being a dogma. Once again people are adding emotionally responsive words to try to discredit someone who is just reporting what they have learned. I would suggest to each of you that you attack the science. Really take a close look at it instead of just attacking the person reporting about it. Martin you did bring in a good point about the variation being small but have you done the calculations to prove that information. The way you word your sentence is as if it is a fact but unitl some real calculations come forth about this then I would have to say that your statement is false becuase you cannot prove that. What can be proven is that there is a variation. What can be proven is that there is cause to believe that radioactive decay is not as constant as once was believed. What can be proven is the scientific method by which all dates in the past were obtained. What must now be done is to recalculate any date given in the past by this method because the method they used did not allow for that variance. Doing anything else would be negligent to the scientific method.
Supporter, I attack gross stupidities where ever they are and given Terry's track record of ignorance and misunderstanding I would not say that it is without provocation. It is not an ad hominem attack. Terry's ideas are wrong because the ideas are wrong, not because he has shown himself to be ignorant and have a poor grip of science.
Yes, I have done the calculations. Weninger B, Jöris O in 2008 showed that there could be up to a 15% variance in C14/C12 derived ages (a more precise figure since the original effects were first discovered back in the 60's) without taking into account of the variance in C14 production. The 0.3% value that Terry makes such a noise about is nothing compared to that.
As long as radiometric decay rates are calculated over a period greater than the 33 day cycle and preferably a multiple of that cycle then the effect is averaged out.
That is the scientific method and that is why my statements are correct and Terry's are flat out wrong.
No Supporter, Terry is attacking science by writing articles like these. And if he could get his pseudo-scientific ideas taught in schools he gladly would. Also, Terry himself comments on Hugh Kramer's examiner page sometimes making attacks of his own. There ARE no scientific points that support creationism. And according to the logical consequences of his last article, there never can be. Creationism is "science is wrong therefore Goddidit with magic!". And no, the "evil" caricature may be an extreme, but if you have read many of his previous entries, they are his caricatures, and very typical of creationism. Remember, evolution = atheism = Godless = evil. Not a straw-man that I came up with though.
Supporter:
As Martin posted, scientists have discovered that there are variances in radioactive decay. Terry however, uses this recent discovery to simply propound, "the Global Flood and its associated earthquakes probably explain that better," and, "is a direct blow to the heart of the conventional case for an old earth." It is these absurd conclusions, which are fly in the face of reality based scientific methodology.
I find it amusing that the YECs will jump on and fully accept any change in scientific theory that even remotely hints at supporting creationism, but are unyielding in their acceptance of other mainstream scientific theory.
Scientific theories change over time and scientists enthusiastically rush in to understand these changes. But, it's become clear to those that have read Terry's previous entries that his agenda is to obfuscate and confuse Christians who may read his "articles."
A prime example of this was a statement from Terry that no Christian (at least no YEC Christian) scientist accepts an old earth scenario. How ludicrous. Is any Christian, who isn't YEC not a Christian.
With statements such as these Terry proves he is merely a toady for the YEC community and justly deserves harsh criticism.
Poor guy is beating a dead horse. Very foolish and silly to hold such beliefs. He probably believes the moon is made of cheese, that the sun goes around the world, or better yet that the earth is flat!
To live in such purposeful ignorance would surly be a sin if there was a God keeping score.
Very good article and actually, Science and God do agree, and many scientists believe in creation. After all, God created science! He made something out of nothing! Matter out of spirit! After all where did matter come from?
> Science and God do agree
You mean like Pi equalling 3 or the creation myth
Judy, perhaps you could elaborate somewhat on the um, "science" of God-poofing matter out of spirit?
quite an interesting article
Nobody has a clue how this universe really works. We have only scratched the surface. I suggest we all take a step back and recognize science is a work in progress hence criticism or support should be dealt with a touch of humility and open mind.
Perhaps radioactivity can be adjusted by proximity to Sagittarius A? (compensating for red shift, and variation in Black Holar radiation due to a rotational period of 28 days)
has anyone researched this?
perhaps palladium fusion is variable because of it's surface area and current direction the earth's rotation and tilt (sagittarius a is from sagittarius)
(the earth rotates and is tilted)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!