Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
44 online now:
14174dm, Base12, dwise1, nwr (4 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,360 Year: 11,108/23,288 Month: 360/1,763 Week: 327/390 Day: 48/99 Hour: 3/7

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Member (Idle past 1431 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009

Message 235 of 305 (712501)
12-04-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Percy
12-01-2013 8:27 AM

Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Man you guys are engaged in massive overkill for mindspawn whose issues with science are more to do with psychological problems than anything else but I guess it's fun.

(See Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates, which is the technical paper that is the subject of the Purdue article referenced by Mindspawn, New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning).

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.

see last post by bcrowell

Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Percy, posted 12-01-2013 8:27 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 3:39 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded
 Message 238 by Percy, posted 12-04-2013 4:49 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020