Neutrinos may not be neutral after all!

Do neutrinos affect radioactive decay? That's what new research at Purdue seems to suggest. When researchers at Purdue were looking for a reliable way to generate random numbers, they thought they were smart to use radioactive decay - after all the rate of decay was a known constant (for a given material) but the decay of any particular atom was truly random. But what they discovered may have huge implications for the Standard Model, for physics and for cosmology.

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants. Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
In addition, during a solar flare event in Dec 2006, a Purdue researcher, observing day in manganese-54, noticed that the decay rate began to drop almost 36 hours before the flare event became visible on earth. In a series of published papers, the Purdue team showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems. Their findings strengthened the argument that the strange swings in decay rates were caused by neutrinos from the sun. The decay rates dropped as the Earth came closer to the sun (where it would be exposed to more neutrinos) and rose as the Earth moved farther away. So there was good reason to suspect the sun, but could it be proven? Enter Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun. Sturrock knew from his experience that the observed neutrino intensity varies on a regular basis as the sun revolves and shows a different face to the Earth. He suggested that Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. Looking again at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days, which differed from the observed solar rotation period of about 28 days. They explain this by suggesting that the core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – spins more slowly than the surface. The evidence points toward a conclusion that emissions form the sun are directly influencing radioactive isotopes on Earth. However, no one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay. This result holds promise in many ways: as an early warning system for Solar Flares; as an avenue for new research on neutrinos; or as the first inking of even stranger new particles. “It would have to be something we don’t know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable,” Sturrock said. H/T: io9 and Symmetry Magazine

Continue ReadingNeutrinos may not be neutral after all!

Reaching out

Lisa Rokusek often writes for Dangerous Intersection. She also writes for her own website, The Rhino and the Buddha. Lisa and her partner have made a cottage industry of reaching out to help others, including cats, and dogs, but mostly to other human beings. Lisa is a good friend of mine and she never ceases to impress me with her willingness to keep trying, sometimes against all odds. I'm not trying to embarrass her by saying this, but merely indicating that some of Lisa's bouts of empathy are endeavors that I would be hesitant to attempt. Framed with quotes by Pema Chödrön, Lisa's most recent post, "No Guarantee," is a charmingly well-written but less-than-satisfying episode that ends with several important observations:

Sometimes we sow seeds we don't get to see grow. Sometimes we expend effort and it has no impact. Sometimes little things we do without noticing make all the difference.

Continue ReadingReaching out

On the current attempts to bludgeon innocent children with a Constitutional Amendment

The arguments for the proposed amendment to strip innocent children of citizenship by altering the Fourteenth Amendment do not pass muster from the viewpoint of long-standing American values. An unspoken and insidious agenda is being pursued under the alleged concerns of “saving tax dollars” or “protecting our borders!” Most of the 27 Constitutional Amendments passed so far limit the powers of the government or expand or protect the liberties of the people. The proposed anti-immigrant change does neither of these things. I would also oppose the proposed changes to the Fourteenth Amendment as unnecessarily cruel and punitive to an innocent class of persons, infants and children who have done no one any wrong. Yet some are now arguing for a Constitutional change to exclude from U.S. citizenship those children born to one or more illegal aliens (or to foreign visitors). For this reason some supporters of the constitutional amendment call the children “anchor babies.” To be sure, this term is a code word most often referring to children of Mexican descent. The process of becoming a citizen based on the fact that at least one of your children is a US citizen is lengthy and it cannot begin until the child is 21 and makes earnings of at least 125% of the US poverty threshold. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingOn the current attempts to bludgeon innocent children with a Constitutional Amendment

Egg recall shows (again) how broken our industrial-foods model has become

How many times will it take for the consumer to wake up? Back in May, I wrote a post about the generally dismal state of regulation in matters of food safety, which allows large producers all the slack in the world at the expense of the consumer. I wish I could say that the state of affairs had changed dramatically in the meantime, but the current recall of over half a billion eggs reveals that nothing has changed.

Continue ReadingEgg recall shows (again) how broken our industrial-foods model has become