Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 3:14 PM
43 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK (5 members, 38 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,497 Year: 3,534/19,786 Month: 529/1,087 Week: 119/212 Day: 35/14 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 256 of 305 (712676)
12-05-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by RAZD
12-05-2013 5:55 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
aren't you guys a little off topic here?

Actually I had thought about that on the way home this evening, but I was not going to say anything because that would look to much like backing down. Now I can pretend that you are holding me back.

Thanks!

And hey, should you even be here?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 5:55 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 257 of 305 (712703)
12-06-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:

And this is why I don't want to debate Mindspawn's made up effect with you.

You and I were never debating about that.

Well, that's what I've been debating. Repeating what I said several times before, Mindspawn's made up effect is that a sufficiently strong planetary magnetic field would block the solar wind to the point where it would allow a tenfold increase in radioactive decay rates. I said that were the effect real that it would not be limited to decay rates but should also affect nuclear processes in general and therefore fission and fusion, and so the effect should have shown up in fusion experiments that use very strong magnetic fields but has not.

Concerning the issue about fission occurring during fusion, I was, as I explained earlier, arguing from general principles. At the millions of degrees temperatures of fusion there should be a plentiful supply of extremely energetic particles capable of splitting nuclei. I also expect things to happen besides just the production of helium-3 and helium-4 (again just from general principles, in this case that nature is almost always messier than our stylized descriptions) and poking around a bit I see that that is likely true, that helium-5 should also be produced during fusion. It decays to helium-4 in about a second (emitting a neutron), and if its decay rate were to increase tenfold then it seems like something that would be noticed because it would affect the rate of production of helium-4.

At one point I described a chain reaction that might be self-sustaining were there a critical mass, and I said it would be affected by decay rates. It was the passage where you bolded the first sentence. You've variously called it "nonsense" and "just plain wrong." I'm sure the description isn't perfect and could be much improved upon, but it should still be recognizable as a description of a chain reaction.

I still think your certainty that Mindspawn's effect wouldn't show up in fusion experiments is unjustified. But I also think any lengthy discussion of the possibility is silly because Mindspawn's effect is made up.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 4:26 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by NoNukes, posted 12-06-2013 11:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 305 (712730)
12-06-2013 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Percy
12-06-2013 8:11 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
I still think your certainty that Mindspawn's effect wouldn't show up in fusion experiments is unjustified. But I also think any lengthy discussion of the possibility is silly because Mindspawn's effect is made up.

I don't have any such certainty. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong about that issue.

What I did say is that I can come up with at least examples where the effect on decay rates and the effect on fusion rates differs by far more than six orders of magnitude. I pointed out that the same was true when looking at decay rates compared to fission rates.

Decay rates p(with a few exceptions for electron capture) are determined strictly by internal nuclear processes, while fusion and fission process are induced processes that can be arranged so that their rates are dominated by environmental factors. The idea that some mysterious force might have orders of magnitudes worth of difference on decay rates and either fission or fusion is nothing new.

None of that proves you were wrong. It only suggests why I don't find your chosen argument convincing. But given that I personally don't need convincing because I understand that mindspawn is extrapolating from an effect that does not exist in the first place, I may have caused more harm than good. I did show off a bit.

I did make some other arguments, but they don't seem as vitally earth shattering today as they did yesterday. Not going to pursue them unless there is some interest. Sorry I blew up.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 12-06-2013 8:11 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(4)
Message 259 of 305 (712738)
12-06-2013 11:41 AM


Sheesh, get a room.
.
  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1998
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 260 of 305 (713018)
12-09-2013 7:18 AM


Diatoms are algae?
This one was strange:

minspawn writes:

Diatoms are algae.

Yes. And? Another rabbit-hole?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 261 of 305 (713025)
12-09-2013 8:37 AM


What a mishmosh
From about 200AD and earlier the magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger,

No.

Last 40,000 years from that graph scaled and overlaid (in red) on a calibration curve:

Th-Ur dating does match carbon dating due to the same method being used (decay of elements/isotopes)

Mindie, like many creationists, thinks that radioactive decay is one process. It's three (at least) kinds with many variations of each. Affecting one variation is unlikely to affect another.


Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 12-10-2013 7:29 AM JonF has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1871
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
Message 262 of 305 (713101)
12-09-2013 4:38 PM


In Message 87, RAZD writes:

For example, the Hasu River enters Lake Mikata where the sediments suspended in the river, even during a large flood, will fall out.

(emphasis mine)

Later, in Message 92, Mindspawn writes:

Summary:

A) Lake Suigetsu, you went to great lengths to explain how the river sediment is suspended and therefore deposits seasonally and then in post 87 you quoted contradictory information regarding how they chose the Lake due to the LACK of suspended sediment, and your quote actually supports my position:
" The result of this is that the waters of Lake Suigetsu have very little suspended sediment"

Hello? Mikaka is not Suigetsu, right??

Where did RAZD go at "great lengths to explain how the river sediment is suspended" - what message was that?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 263 of 305 (713116)
12-09-2013 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Granny Magda
11-12-2013 2:06 PM


Re: Great Debate Message 4 and Correlations
He PM'ed me a while back; he's well and is busy with study.

That's good to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Granny Magda, posted 11-12-2013 2:06 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 264 of 305 (713129)
12-09-2013 11:52 PM


That sums it up nicely
In the Great Debate, RAZD notes in Message 93 that:

one of the problems with replying to posts with rabbit holes, misrepresentations and erroneous information is that it takes a lot of information to fill in and correct...
I think he has captured the essence of creation "science" in that one short phrase.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 265 of 305 (713139)
12-10-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by JonF
12-09-2013 8:37 AM


Re: What a mishmosh
JonF writes:

Mindie, like many creationists, thinks that radioactive decay is one process. It's three (at least) kinds with many variations of each. Affecting one variation is unlikely to affect another.

If I'm not sure what you mean, Mindspawn probably isn't sure either. Maybe it would help to briefly describe the three variants of radioactive decay, and how their root causes makes them unlikely to be affected in the same way by things like magnetic fields and solar wind. Or has he seen and ignored information like this already?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by JonF, posted 12-09-2013 8:37 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 9:39 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 267 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2013 10:57 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 268 by JonF, posted 12-10-2013 11:19 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 305 (713150)
12-10-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Percy
12-10-2013 7:29 AM


Re: What a mishmosh
f I'm not sure what you mean, Mindspawn probably isn't sure either. Maybe it would help to briefly describe the three variants of radioactive decay, and how their root causes makes them unlikely to be affected in the same way by things like magnetic fields and solar wind. Or has he seen and ignored information like this already?

I think the different types of decay stuff is secondary. The real problem is that magnetic fields and cosmic radiation do not affect decay rates at all. There is zero evidence of that. In fact we've seen evidence posted here indicating exactly that. Mindspawn's continued blaming of stuff on magnetic fields and earth's tilt (assuming that is what he is still doing) is BS.

Instead those things affect the production rate of C-14 from N14, changing the initial ratio of C-14/C-12 in the atmosphere and in living organism. There is a particular reaction chains involved, namely N14 + neutron -> C14 + proton. and we know the rates expected for those induced reactions for a given neutron flux. The production rate is, to first order, proportional to the neutron flux.

There is no corresponding, comparable production of heavy elements from atmospheric neutrons produced from cosmic or solar radiation. That's why U-Th dating does not use an atmospheric correction. Magnetism does not do anything to decay rates.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 12-10-2013 7:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 267 of 305 (713160)
12-10-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Percy
12-10-2013 7:29 AM


Re: What a mishmosh
Maybe it would help to briefly describe the three variants of radioactive decay, and how their root causes makes them unlikely to be affected in the same way by things like magnetic fields and solar wind.

In a sense, radioactive decay does not have a cause, which is yet another reason why I would resist confusing decay with provoked atom splitting events like fission.

As I understand it, a radioactive decay event is a tunneling event and is best described as an uncaused quantum mechanical, effect. I hope the description below is good enough for this discussion. I would modify the description considerably for things like electron capture and spontaneous fission.

Taking alpha decay as an example.

An alpha particle is a highly stable block of particles, and while inside the nucleus is in an classically energetically allowed energy state. Another classically energetically allowed state is with the alpha particle outside of the nucleus being repelled by coulomb forces. There is an energy barrier caused by nuclear forces that presents an energy hill that the decay particle to be, would under classical mechanics never be able to climb to transition between the two.

But nuclei are not well described with classical mechanics. Under those circumstances, and for some nuclei, there is a finite probability that the particle will tunnel through the energy barrier and escape. The parameters that affect that probability are entirely nuclear in nature, and determined by the nuclear structure, the escaping decay particle, nothing else that is not a constant. There is a thread here where some of us discuss those things at some length.

Making an atom move faster by heating it up or cooling it does not appreciably change those things unless special relativity rears its head. Not the case for ordinary temperatures and pressures. We know from experiment that magnetic fields don't have much effect either.

In a large sample of particles (and even for more massive isotopes, there are statistically large number of nuclei in even micro-gram samples) particles escaping under a fixed probability translates to an exponential decay. In large sample, even moreso. So who says quantum mechanics is just for little things we cannot even see.

I've simplified things a bit. Sometimes there is more than one mode of decay because there is more than one particle emission that might occur. But I think I've captured the gist of things.

And good luck explaining that stuff to mindspawn.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 12-10-2013 7:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 268 of 305 (713164)
12-10-2013 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Percy
12-10-2013 7:29 AM


variants of radioactive decay
Well, Types of Radioactive Decay has a good and brief introduction. Only alpha, beta-, beta+, and electron capture are significant for radiometric dating.

Why it's unlikely to be affected means both experimental and theoretical reasons. the theoretical reasons are heavy QM and I don't understand them very well. But it's pretty obvious that decay is nuclear and therefore charged particles are unlikely to have any effect because they can't get by the electron shell (except in high energy and pressure situations that aren't found on Earth in nature). You may be able to get teh falover of it from Modifications of Nuclear Beta Decay Rates.

Some experimental methods have been presented already, from Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates:

quote:
One of the paradigms of nuclear science since the very early days of its study has been the general understanding that the half-life, or decay constant, of a radioactive substance is independent of extranuclear considerations. Early workers tried to change the decay constants of various members of the natural radioactive series by varying the temperature between 24K and 1280oK, by applying pressure of up to 2000 atm, by taking sources down into mines and up to the Jungfraujoch, by applying magnetic fields of up to 83,000 Gauss, by whirling sources in centrifuges, and by many other ingenious techniques. Occasional positive results were usually understood, in time, as the result of changes in the counting geometry, or of the loss of volatile members of the natural decay chains. This work was reviewed by Meyer & Schweidler (I), Kohlrausch (2), and Bothe (3). Especially interesting for its precision is the experiment of Curie & Kamerlingh Onnes (4), who reported that lowering the temperature of a radium preparation to the boiling point of liquid hydrogen changed its activity, and thus its decay constant, by less than about 0.05%. Especially dramatic was an experiment of Rutherford & Petavel (5), who put a sample of radium emanation inside a steel-encased cordite bomb. Even though temperatures of 2500C and pressures of 1000 atm were estimated to have occurred during the explosion, no discontinuity in the activity of the sample was observed.

While the constancy of nuclear decay rates was thus firmly established, the confirming evidence was from studies of alpha- and beta-emitting species. It was pointed out in 1947 by Segre (6) and by Daudel (7) that in the case of electron-capture decays the decay rate is directly related to the density of atomic electrons at the nucleus, and that, at least for low-Z nuclei such as 7Be, the effects of different chemical environments should be measurable. The possible eff"ects and some preliminary experimental attempts were discussed by Bouchez et al (8-10). Firm results establishing the effect were obtained by Segre, Wiegand, and Leininger (11, 12), and were confirmed and extended by Kraushaar, Wilson & Bainbridge (13), and by Bouchez et al (14). The confirmed effects were of the order of 0.1 %.


See also Are decay constants actually constant?

There's PurpleYouko's testimony in Message 946 that she has seen high neutron flux or shielding from neutron flux fail to have any effect on decay rates.

So people have tried an calculated hard for over a century and have not been able to change decay rates significantly except under conditions incompatible with the existence of the Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 12-10-2013 7:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 269 of 305 (713191)
12-10-2013 2:52 PM


"Recent" geomagnetic filed variation
Oooh! Oooh! Here's a better graph from Variations in the geomagnetic dipole moment over the last 12000 years

Virtual axial dipole moment (VADM)
Intensity of an imaginary axial (along the Earth's rotation axis) centric (located in the centre of the Earth) dipole that would produce the estimated archaeo-/palaeointensity at the sampling site. It is calculated from the archaeo-/palaeointensity of a sample as estimated by measurements in the laboratory and the magnetic co-latitude of the sampling site.


  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 270 of 305 (713220)
12-10-2013 8:30 PM


WTF? Taq's comment is a total non-sequiter. Nobody's arguing that varves are flood deposits.
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019