Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 899 of 991 (709284)
10-24-2013 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 886 by NoNukes
10-22-2013 5:55 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Is the mechanism likely?
Before I put anymore time into this, have you fleshed this out as best as you intend, or should I wait for some more physics.
As I understand things, your theory is that muons have caused fusion which in turn generates a neutron flux that speeds up decay rates?
The theory is that muons cause fusion (and other processes), which maintains the current natural neutron flux which is currently slowing the decay rate through neutron capture.
The Neutron Capture Process - Windows to the Universe
"Neutron capture can occur when a neutron approaches a nucleus close enough for nuclear forces to be effective. The neutron is captured and forms a heavier isotope of the capturing element."
Instead of heavy isotopes steadily decaying, we have a simultaneous process of heavy isotopes being created, or lighter isotopes becoming heavier. This slows down the amount of daughter isotope present in the rock, the parent maintaining its heavy and unstable state.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/.../PDF/nhess-3-777-2003.pdf
First, neutrons are formed as a result of interaction of cosmic radiation with atomic nuclei of material of the atmosphere and the earth’s crust.
Cosmic radiation is currently high (from a weak magnetic field). The neutron background was therefore weaker during periods of strong magnetic fields. This weaker neutron flux would allow more of the parent isotope to decay into a stable state, and we would have had a historical period of rapid parent to daughter transition.
(rocks showing a high proportion of daughter isotope are not as old as we think they are, because the daughter isotope would have been rapidly produced during strong magnetic fields that suppressed the solar wind and cosmic flux induced neutron flux)
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 886 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2013 5:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 901 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2013 7:54 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 902 by JonF, posted 10-24-2013 8:11 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 905 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2013 1:46 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 907 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-24-2013 4:02 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 908 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2013 5:23 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 932 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-25-2013 11:55 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 915 of 991 (709333)
10-25-2013 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 902 by JonF
10-24-2013 8:11 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
In stars. The neutron flux, temperature, and pressure on Earth at any time during its existence are nowhere near enough to produce your alleged effect. Elements and isotopes heavier than iron are produced only in supernovae, not even in ordinary novae. No way have they ever been produced on Earth. {ABE: under terrestial conditions. Maybe appropriate conditions have been produced in a lab, but I doubt it.}
"I doubt it" is not a strong argument.
"Cosmogenic neutrons, neutrons produced from cosmic radiation in the Earth's atmosphere or surface, and those produced in particle accelerators can be significantly higher energy than those encountered in reactors. Most of them activate a nucleus before reaching the ground; a few react with nuclei in the air"
And even after that destroys your argument, you need to have relevant radioactive isotopes produced at a rate that exactly matches their decay rate minus a little bit in order for the various dating methods to be as consilient as we see
Is there any reason why the effect would not be proportionate?
A lot of consilience in radiometric dating is due to calibrating against existing methods.
I have often searched for evidence of how the rates were established in the first place, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems they measure the changing ratio of parent to daughter over time, by literally separating the rock in a mass spectrometer.
We see that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field has varied considerably over the last 50,000 years. In your scenario that would have affected the 14C dates in Suigetsu's varves in a highly nonlinear fashion. But the correlation between varve count and 14C dates is pretty darned linear.
Its only linear because they already adjust their dates according to the magnetic field effect on carbon dating. The effect is attributed to the changing production of atmospheric carbon during fluctuations in the magnetic field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by JonF, posted 10-24-2013 8:11 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 919 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2013 8:30 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 921 by JonF, posted 10-25-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 935 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-25-2013 12:57 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 916 of 991 (709334)
10-25-2013 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by NoNukes
10-24-2013 7:54 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
Uranium shows the same slow rate of decay when we purify it and measure the decay rate in a lab. So apparently this neutron flux must be all around us.
Yes the neutron flux is around us all the time. That is my point. The flux would have been weaker in the past when the magnetic field was stronger.
First, this is not what you originally posted. And frankly your scenario is so ridiculous that it is actually insulting that you'd try it here. Among the things I've done in the past is operate a nuclear reactor aboard a submarine. I'm not an amateur on this topic
Neutrons themselves are deadly radiation. We know that we aren't currently living in a neutron flux because we are not dead. Unlike the case with neutrinos, neutrons are quite detectable. This is one reason why your story is bogus.
Another problem is that the composition of ordinary objects would be constantly changing. An ordinary iron bar would become radioactive over time, and of course would not contain lighter elements to replace the iron nucleii that have become radioactive.
Uranium 235 does not transmute to higher elements when bombarded by neutrons. It undergoes fission roughly into nucleii half roughly original size and releasing lots of energy. This would be quite detectable. The neutron flux would not make it decay or transmute to new elements.
Even water would become more radioactive over time as it absorbed neutrons. What replaces the lightest elements?.
What did I originally post that has changed?
1) We are living in a neutron flux, possibly a better term is neutron background. Obviously its not at dangerous levels.
Just a moment...
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/.../lngs07_slides/071107_zhukov.pdf
We took into account, that neutrons occurred both due to natural radioactivity of surrounding rocks and induced by cosmic muons.
2) I am saying that what we already observe in iron occurs within an already existing neutron background.
3) I not referring to higher elements, I'm referring to heavier isotopes. Isotopes do get heavier under neutron bombardment (neutron activation). With a slight neutron background this slows down the decay effect, the decay still continues, but the production of the daughter isotope is currently slow. At the rates we observe, even though there is an existing neutron background, heavy isotopes still do decay albeit slowly. Obviously if we remove the neutron background they will decay faster into daughter isotopes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2013 7:54 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 917 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2013 7:48 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 922 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2013 8:39 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 926 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2013 9:21 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 937 of 991 (709525)
10-28-2013 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 905 by PaulK
10-24-2013 1:46 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
We might object that it is well known that the chain-reaction used in fission reactors - and fission bombs - relies on the production of fast neutrons produced by fission. Assuming that neutrons automatically slow decay requires more than assertion.
With no numbers - and no evidence of slowed decay rates - this is barely a speculative hypothesis, but let's check the logic.
quote:
Not Found
"Neutron capture can occur when a neutron approaches a nucleus close enough for nuclear forces to be effective. The neutron is captured and forms a heavier isotope of the capturing element."
THis simply states that an isotope can be changed to a heavier isotope. Nothing about slowing decay. (Also,we note that it is referring to the interior of the Sun where conditions are somewhat different to those on Earth).
What is slowed is the amount of parent isotope that has decayed into daughter isotope. The rate of transformation from one to the other is slowed down. Our assumption of long timescales is based on currently measured rates of the proportions of parent to daughter isotope over short timeframes.
[qs]This is not SLOWING decay, this is HIDING the evidence of decay! If the daughter isotope is present in reduced amounts then methods which rely on measuring the quantity of the daughter isotope will show LOWER ages!
Going off course to argue against yourself is hardly a sign that you have rationally considered your position,
Would it ? Why ? Wouldn't it depend on the elements and isotopes involved ? And why would it reduce the ages ? Doesn't that depend on the method ? It would be more honest to admit that you HAVEN'T done the necessary work to produce a viable hypothesis - and wiser, too, since you've made it absolutely obvious that you haven't.
Yes it definitely depends on the elements. Most elements used in radiometric dating are heavy elements and have lengthy half-lives, and are more prone to neutron capture.
It would reduce the ages by using the slow rates of parent to daughter transformation as accurately measured today. These slow rates are applied to rocks that have very little parent isotope left in them, its assumed the decay from parent to daughter occurred at the same rates as today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 905 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2013 1:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 938 by Pressie, posted 10-28-2013 6:02 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 939 by JonF, posted 10-28-2013 7:24 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 948 by PaulK, posted 10-28-2013 1:55 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 949 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 9:11 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 950 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 9:26 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 940 of 991 (709529)
10-28-2013 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 917 by NoNukes
10-25-2013 7:48 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
Not possible for the flux to be slight. According to you, the neutron flux intervenes by converting atoms to higher isotopes. Thus the flux must affect enough atoms to explain the entire difference between the high decay rates you say used to exist and the current rates.
Also radioactive decay is a random process. The neutron flux must hit affect each atom before it would have decayed to be effective. Every time it strikes the wrong atom we get increased decay rates because the original atom decays anyway. So the neutron flux must greatly exceed the high rate of decay way back when.
So the required neutron flux is not "slight". It must be great. And what happens when the flux is blocked? According to you, any time U235, or any other radioactive material is put behind borated poly shielding it should decay away at extremely high rates. But this does not happen.
If you want to make a point about slight or great, we need actual figures. I feel that for an element to have a half-life of a few thousand years is still a slow process that can be affected by the current neutron background.
As for borated poly shielding, this neutron background effect would not have much effect on the detection of particle emission during decay, but I do believe the actual production of daughter isotope would greatly increase immediately upon shielding the sample. A good way to measure this would be to arrange two samples of the same consistency of parent/daughter, one shielded and one not. Measure the ratio, and then a few years later measure the ratio again. Depending on the half-life there should be a detectable difference between the two samples a few years later, the protected sample showing a higher proportion of daughter isotope than the unprotected sample.
And do the non radioactive isotopes in an iron bar get continously heavier over time. Not observed.
Further, isotopes are not uniformly abundant. In fact when we measure the rate of decay of U235 or U238, we take a sample in which the other isotopes have been removed. What explains the slow decay rate in a pure sample containing a single isotope? Your neutron flux would simply remove the single isotope at an increased rate.
Iron is mainly stable, and when pushed into an unstable state (fe59 or fe60) it rapidly decays back to a stable state with days or within a few years. There are not enough neutrons in the neutron background to overcome the high decay rate and permanently change the iron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 917 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2013 7:48 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 941 by JonF, posted 10-28-2013 8:15 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 942 by NoNukes, posted 10-28-2013 8:31 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 943 by vimesey, posted 10-28-2013 8:36 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 946 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-28-2013 10:43 AM mindspawn has replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 954 of 991 (709647)
10-29-2013 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 946 by PurpleYouko
10-28-2013 10:43 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
So you are suggesting that neutron flux can have an affect on the rate of decay correct?
It doesn't.
Samples decay at precisely the same rate whether they are left in the reactor core, left on a lab bench or completely surrounded by shielding. This has been tested quite extensively for more than 30 years here.
I do find myself wondering if you might be confusing something a little though.
It would make logical sense for neutron flux to slow down the decay process if the neutron capture path were identical but reversed to the decay path. Such a situation would indeed result in an equilibrium between neutron capture and decay.
However this is not the case.
The decay path is always different than the neutron capture path. To put it another way, the daughter isotope is always different than the original target isotope (the one that captured the neutron)
Thanks for your informative reply, I accept what you say at face value.
The reason I came to the conclusion about the neutron flux is that recently Purdue University and the Geological Survey of Israel have noted the following four patterns in decay behavior which was always previously thought to be constant (I'm sure you are aware of the Purdue University studies, I will attach links if necessary):
1) Solar flares slow decay
2) Decay slows during July
3) Decay slows at midnight.
4) Decay slows according to the 11 year solar cycle
Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation
These are the same behaviour patterns of muons, which show a stronger flux in all four of those conditions (I can supply links if required. Logically the July and midnight effect are largely caused by the tilt of the magnetic pole in winter, and the point of best penetration of the solar wind)
It was initially thought that neutrinos caused the fluctuating decay, but this possibility has largely been ruled out.
I noticed that muons had a matching pattern and also they caused neutrons in more than one manner, and neutrons would have logically had a direct effect through neutron capture , but as you say the decay path is different to the neutron capture path and the near equilibrium that I am proposing is not actually observed.
But the observation of a matching pattern between the two (muons and decay) shows that the penetration of the solar wind could be having a direct effect on decay. The strength of the magnetic field can strongly vary the penetration of the solar wind. Therefore the current assumption that decay has always been constant and the Purdue observations have only a minor effect on decay, is a little premature when we consider how directly a strong magnetic field has protected earth from the solar wind in the past. ie something in the solar wind (like proton induced muons) is having a current effect on decay, and that effect has the same pattern as particles that are sensitive to magnetic field fluctuations.
OK two points here.
First of all as I have pointed out above, the effects of neutron flux on decay rates has been tested rather thoroughly and categorically ruled out as a possible way to change decay rates.
Secondly and much more seriously, the kind of thermal or fast neutron flux needed for any isotope to capture a neutron would be many orders of magnitude higher than any form of organic life could survive. Such a flux on the surface of the planet would inevitably result in a sterile radioactive wasteland
Ok I accept your first point, must still look into your second point.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 946 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-28-2013 10:43 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 955 by JonF, posted 10-29-2013 8:07 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 957 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2013 11:13 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 960 by PaulK, posted 10-29-2013 2:34 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 964 of 991 (709784)
10-30-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 957 by PurpleYouko
10-29-2013 11:13 AM


Re: This so bad it is disrespectful.
However there is still a question of what the actual cause of the effect really is. It was initially thought to be neutrino flux but it is still quite possible that some unknown particle is responsible.
Yes I feel that neutrinos have largely been eliminated as a cause. They also measured decay rates at varying distance from the sun, and the rates did not change, if it was neutrinos with a relatively uniform flux there should be a uniform change in decay with distance from the sun (decreasing density) , this is not the case.
So yes there does seem to be a measurable change in the decay rates due to something going on in the sun.
But what effect does slowing the decay rate by a fraction of 1 percent for short periods of time during increased solar activity have on radiometric dating?
Its all about the penetration of the solar wind through the magnetic field:
1) at midnight the solar wind has better penetration of the magnetic field at the magnetic poles
2) during July more solar wind penetrates the northern hemisphere because the north pole is tilted towards the sun
3) during a solar flare the solar wind is stronger, more solar wind penetrates the magnetic field
4) during the 11 year solar cycle, the solar wind is cyclically stronger.
If a slight increase in penetration of the solar wind causes a slight drop in decay rates, what effect will a near complete blockage of most of the solar wind have during past periods of strong magnetic fields? Slight effect? Major effect? We do not know the answer to this because the cause of the effect is unknown.
The assumption that this effect would be slight during past periods of strong magnetic fields appears to me just an assumption with no actual empirical foundation. Slight increases change decay sightly, what would a complete blockout of the mystery effect do? Interesting to contemplate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 957 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-29-2013 11:13 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 965 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 8:08 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 966 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2013 8:11 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 967 by JonF, posted 10-30-2013 8:59 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 968 by PurpleYouko, posted 10-30-2013 9:27 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024