Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:11) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,09:21) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,00:29) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35) |
Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus! Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...
| Quote |
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
Abstract
Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%.
|
|
Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?
Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight |
Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years. The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.
You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating. |
Ah so you conclude that all isotopes are equally stable when it comes to fluctuations? |
You can't even get the terminology straight. There are known environmental effects on decay rates, but they are not randomly up and down (fluctuation) or periodic (oscillation up and down). I am only discussing the latter, which seems to be pathological science. On the other hand, you are just ineffectually grasping at straws.
| Quote | Lets see if Ogre disagrees.
Oh and your first sentence seems contradictory. |
Not if you read the paper and understand it.
| Quote | | As already mentioned, such measurements extending over months or years are susceptible to systematic effects and instabilities arising from changes in temperature, humidity, background radiation and instrumental drifts. To avoid these problems, we have followed a quite different approach, making seven individual half-life measurements of a shorter-lived radionuclide, 198Au (t1/2 = 2.7 d), spread out in time so that all seven measurements together span the full range of Earth-Sun distances. By depending on direct, relatively short half-life measurements, rather than separate activity measurements spaced over a long time, we substantially reduce the effects of environmental and instrumental variations. |
What else does Iacob say here?
| Quote | | More recently, Schrader (2010) has pointed out that the variations in the PTB results disappear or completely change their structure when a different current-measurement technique is used. Nevertheless, Jenkins et al. (2010) have taken both data sets at face value and proposed much more fundamental causes, such as possible changes in the magnitudes of fundamental constants – the fine structure constant or the electron-to-proton mass ratio – or changes in the flux of solar neutrinos (see Fischbach et al., 2009). More recently, Fischbach et al. (2011) even speculate that new objects they call “neutrellos” could be responsible. |
Results that disappear when measured differently, most people would understand that the effect is probably not real. But not a Bozo!
--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV
"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen
"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers
|
