* Astronomy

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Nuclear decay


L

Posts: 131433
Date:
Nuclear Decay Rates
Permalink  
 


Title: The Case for a Solar Influence on Certain Nuclear Decay Rates
Authors: Peter Sturrock, Ephraim Fischbach, Daniel Javorsek II, Jere Jenkins, Robert Lee

Power-spectrum analyses of the decay rates of certain nuclides reveal (at very high confidence levels) an annual oscillation and periodicities that may be attributed to solar rotation and to solar r-mode oscillations. A comparison of spectrograms (time-frequency displays) formed from decay data and from solar neutrino data reveals a common periodicity with frequency 12.5 year-1, which is indicative of the solar radiative zone. We propose that the neutrino flux is modulated by the solar magnetic field (via Resonant Spin Flavor Precession) in that region, and we estimate the force and the torque that could be exerted on a nuclide by the solar neutrino flux.

Read more (639kb, PDF)



__________________


L

Posts: 131433
Date:
RE: Nuclear decay
Permalink  
 


Title: Analysis of Experiments Exhibiting Time-Varying Nuclear Decay Rates: Systematic Effects or New Physics?
Authors: Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach, Peter A. Sturrock, Daniel W. Mundy

Since the 1930s, and with very few exceptions, it has been assumed that the process of radioactive decay is a random process, unaffected by the environment in which the decaying nucleus resides. There have been instances within the past few decades, however, where changes in the chemical environment or physical environment brought about small changes in the decay rates. But even in light of these instances, decaying nuclei that were undisturbed or un-"pressured" were thought to behave in the expected random way, subject to the normal decay probabilities which are specific to each nuclide. Moreover, any "non-random" behaviour was assumed automatically to be the fault of the detection systems, the environment surrounding the detectors, or changes in the background radiation to which the detector was exposed. Recently, however, evidence has emerged from a variety of sources, including measurements taken by independent groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, and Purdue University, that indicate there may in fact be an influence that is altering nuclear decay rates, albeit at levels on the order of 10^{-3}. In this paper, we will discuss some of these results, and examine the evidence pointing to the conclusion that the intrinsic decay process is being affected by a solar influence.

Read more (42kb, PDF)



__________________


L

Posts: 131433
Date:
Permalink  
 

The mystery of the varying nuclear decay
It is well-known that a radioactive substance follows a fixed exponential decay, no matter what you do to it. The fact has been set in stone since 1930 when the father of nuclear physics Ernest Rutherford, together with James Chadwick and Charles Ellis, concluded in their definitive Radiations from Radioactive Substances that the rate of transformationis a constant under all conditions.
But this is no longer the view of a pair of physicists in the US. Ephraim Fischbach and Jere Jenkins of Purdue University in Indiana are claiming that, far from being fixed, certain decay constants are influenced by the Sun. It is a claim that is drawing mixed reactions from others in the physics community, not least because it implies that decades of established science is flawed.

Source

__________________


L

Posts: 131433
Date:
Permalink  
 

A German physicist thinks he may have found a way to accelerate the process of nuclear decay, dramatically shortening the half life of dangerous nuclear waste.

Claus Rolfs, chair of experimental physics at Ruhr University, and his team suggest that embedding an alpha emitter in metal and cooling it to just a few degrees Kelvin could reduce its half life to perhaps just tens of years, instead of thousands. If he is right, the whole business of burying nuclear waste in concrete bunkers could be neatly side-stepped.

However, critics say his idea doesn't hold up, that it contradicts existing theory as well as other experimental results. Nick Stone, a retired nuclear physicist from Oxford University, told Physics Web that experiments with cooled, metal embedded alpha emitters had already been run by other physicists, and that no reduction in half life had been observed.
Rolfs, however, is determined that his work is good, although he acknowledges that the theory needs refining.
Rolfs is an astrophysicist, and was working on reproducing stellar fusion when he noticed something odd about alpha decay. He saw that the rate of fusion reactions in his particle accelerator was higher when the target nuclei were encased in metal. Cooling the metal sped the reaction rate even further.
This, he says, gave him the idea.
He proposed that the phenomenon could be explained using a model that assumes free electrons in a metal behave as though they are in a plasma. As the metal cools, the electrons get closer to the nuclei. This encourages positively charged particles in towards the nuclei, making it more likely that one of them will hit and spark a fusion reaction.
Rolfs reasoned that same process might also hasten the ejection of a positively charged particle, such as an alpha particle, from the nucleus, and slow the ejection of electrons from the nucleus. If it did, one could expected shorter half lives for alpha decay, and longer half lives for negative beta decay, or electron capture.
Initial experimental results seem to support the theory. Cooled, metal-embedded beryllium-7's electron capture had a longer half life, while the half lives of positive beta decay of sodium-22 and alpha decay of polonium-210 were shorter. Radium-226, a by-product of nuclear power plants, is next on the list for testing.
Hubert Flocard, director of the CSNSM nuclear-physics lab near Paris told PhysicsWeb that although he can't explain the results, Rolfs' work contradicts the standard model of solid state physics.
It remains to be seen whether this means it is Rolfs' theory, or the standard model needs rejigging.

Source

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard