That is a ridiculous claim… You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.
No, just in the area where Baumgardner gathered his samples.
Which is what leads me to the conclusion that it was intentional.
Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod.
So they have been phased out ...
From google scholar
quote:Detection of radioactive 35S at Fukushima and other Japanese sites A Priyadarshi, J Hill‐Falkenthal… - Journal of …, 2013 - Wiley Online Library ... Immediately after the earthquake, the reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant were automatically shut down and boron–carbon control rods inserted between the fuel columns to absorb neutrons and halt the nuclear chain reaction. ...
Yes, but we can put some tight boundaries on the possible extent of such variation from astrophysics, and from the heat/radiation problem. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.
AND, getting back to the subtitle ... SN1987A demonstrates that radioactive rates have not varied significantly in the last 168,000 years.
Your point is valid, but it is just speculation at this point if these stars even existed. Since finding a Population III star would be one of the most significant finds in modern astronomy. Without any empirical evidence of a Population III star, no one can claim that all metals except lithium were created in stars.
A search for 'Population III stars' turned up some interesting information. Observations (R.A.E. Fosbury et al., 2003) of a gravitationally lensed galaxy (z = 3.36) a show anomalous emission-line intensities in the Si III doublet at 188.3 nm and 189.2 nm; this over-abundance of Si may be a nucleosynthetic signature of past pair-instability supernovae in a Population III cluster. T.H. Puzia et al., 2006; (Astrophys. J., 248, 383-388) also find evidence for pair-instability supernovae in the metal abundances of globular clusters in elliptical galaxies. The metal abundances in SDSS J0018-0939 also appear to show the signature of pair-instability supernovae. Kashlinsky et al. (Nature, 2005) attribute the angular power spectrum and amplitude of large-scale fluctuations in the (IR) background to light from the Population III era. One of your own sources said that the distribution of metal abundances in stars is consistent with nucleosynthesis in supernovae with typical masses of 16 to 33 solar masses, and another source says that metal abundances in extremely metal-poor Population II stars implies that their metal-free progenitors had masses of 20-130 solar masses.
There have been various hypotheses for the failure to find Population III stars. Population III stars may have been massive (>1 solar mass), so that all of them have run their course and there are no main-sequence or giant representatives left. They may have accreted metals from the interstellar medium (perhaps even from supernova remnants), or their surface layers may contain ‘metals’ dredged up from the stellar core where they were made.
And how old is the milky way?
Age estimates from the oldest globular cluster range from 12.6 to 13.4 Gyr. Extremely metal-poor stars, such as HD 140283, SDSS J102915+172927 (Caffau’s star) and SMSS J031300.36-670839.3 have ages of 13 Gyr or more. Studies of white dwarfs show that the Galactic halo is about 11.4 Gyr. The age of the Galactic disc is 8.8±1.7 Gyr.
Let's get to the point. There is compelling evidence that the universe began in a high-density high-temperature state 13.8 Gyr ago, and that hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed in this initial state, about three minutes after time zero. There is also compelling evidence that we can now observe stars that contain small quantities of 'metals' that were formed more than 13 Gyr ago. Nobody has found a way of producing elements heavier than lithium in the 'Big Bang', but these elements are present in the oldest stars that we can see. You say that these 'metals' were not produced in a first generation of metal-free stars. Very well, then; what is your hypothesis for the origin of these 'metals'?
now all you have to do is show me where C-14 was predicted to be in diamonds before it was discovered in diamonds. Citation please…
This doesn’t make any sense. You do know that the crystallography of diamonds has been studied for hundreds of years? You also do know that they figured out that diamonds mainly consist of carbon, but with varying degrees of nitrogen, as well, many, many years before carbon dating were invented? You also do know that C-14 was discovered way before the C-14 method was invented? You do know what physicists do for a living, don't you?
zaius137 writes:
To assume that C-14 just arrives at random in diamonds is alchemy. If there is no source of radiation (lots of it) C-14 cannot form spontaneously. Citation please…Unless you want to claim God put it there…
You do know that C-14 forms from radioactive decay of N-14? You also do know that N-14 can also form from certain radiation on C-14? You do know that many rock forming minerals are radioactive, don't you?
It is very, very basic. High school level stuff. Or were you home-schooled?
quote:Let's get to the point. There is compelling evidence that the universe began in a high-density high-temperature state 13.8 Gyr ago, and that hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed in this initial state, about three minutes after time zero. There is also compelling evidence that we can now observe stars that contain small quantities of 'metals' that were formed more than 13 Gyr ago. Nobody has found a way of producing elements heavier than lithium in the 'Big Bang', but these elements are present in the oldest stars that we can see. You say that these 'metals' were not produced in a first generation of metal-free stars. Very well, then; what is your hypothesis for the origin of these 'metals’?
The best observational evidence is still lacking for population III stars. There is no way the Big Bang can continue as a viable theory without population III stars (if it is even a viable theory now).
quote:Nobody has found a way of producing elements heavier than lithium in the 'Big Bang', but these elements are present in the oldest stars that we can see.
I agree.
quote:You say that these 'metals' were not produced in a first generation of metal-free stars.
I only implied that since population III stars are not observed there is no reason to believe the current explication of stellar existence.
quote:You do know that C-14 forms from radioactive decay of N-14? You also do know that N-14 can also form from certain radiation on C-14? You do know that many rock forming minerals are radioactive, don't you?
C-14 does not form from a radioactive decay of N-14. It is a slow neutron being absorbed by stable nitrogen (N-14).
Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms.
I guess you did go to school in the United States.
This brings up a good point… What are good sources for slow or thermal neutrons. Not just any radioactive source can convert Nitrogen into C-14. Only sources that produce neutrons directly or threw a simple chain of low weight elements.
The mechanism for creating C-14 in diamonds just got more complicated.
Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
quote:Indeed, so there are multiple lines of information with consilient results ... ... and any theory of changing radioactive must be able to account for all of them having similar results.
That is another bad assumption.
It is clear that delta’s in decay rates are not the same across the board. Why some isotopes are affected in different ways by time of year or sun distance is unknown. The mechanism is still uncertain.
But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought.
Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
quote:Yet we still know that the decay rates are stable for extended periods of time -- over 168,000 years in the case of observed decay from SN1987A. All the differences found to date are still insignificant in affecting the measurements for the age of the universe.
Did that distance of 168,000 light years include the co-moving inflation distance (it is outside our galaxy). Even if it does, you expect me to believe that the decay deviation is outside the standard deviation for these elements.
What I have said, over and over, is that the variance seems to be dependent on the element, distance from sun or solar flare (mechanisms are not yet known). How are these elements in proximity of influence of a nearby star? They are in free space, so how can you say they are even relevant to our argument?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)