Requiem for Relativity

More
14 years 3 weeks ago #24164 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Jim, I get the impression that the article is just a heads up. I don't think we're going to see a paper on it for quite awhile. I think the guy wants to sound out what might be causing the results, other than neutrinos, before he puts pen to paper.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 3 weeks ago #24294 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, I'm interested in knowing if all radio active isotopes act the same way. This stuff gets so small it also might be a measuring error. The article is a bit breezy but I think thats a good thing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 3 weeks ago #24353 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Jim, it doesn't say what the rate is for any of the radioactive material they've looked at but it must have been large enough for it to have been noticed by accident. As it's partly seasonal, they will be looking at things like temperature and humidity changes in the measuring equipment. it really does sound like they've done that and are now dipping their toes in the water to see what the community thinks.

The annual energy release from earthquakes is about 1E 25 ergs, the energy release from radioactive decay is a thousand times more !E 28 ergs per year, or 1E 6 J/sec That's an awful lot of energy. Even if this variation is very slight, it will have an accumulative effect on the millions of tonnes of radioactive materials making up the earth.

I noted the almost coy way that an unknown particle was introduced into the article. They have to be thinking graviton here. Well, gravitons will be e able to go straight through the Earth as if it were glass; in fact a lot of the Earth is glasslike. Though I can't see graviton flux as varying to any great degree, over billions of years. Neutrinos yes, but then we have the problem of how they can change decay rates, they shouldn't do much of anything. Another problem is that we don't know a lot about convection rates in the layers of this glasslike rheid material at depth. A sudden change in radioactive decay rates could cause differentiated dramatic changes to the layer system. That would give us increased vulcanism, earthquakes and global weather changes.

All very interesting stuff.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 3 weeks ago #24165 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Oh one possible bummer about this. I had hoped that the infamous Pioneer anomaly could be solved by the use of an ion rocket. There are, I believe, a few out there at the moment, constant thrust motors, so we could detect any gravitational oddities out there. If this neutrino thing turns out to be right, then I don't think we'll have constant thrust but a very slight variation.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 3 weeks ago #23997 by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Sloat, How has the annual decay rate been determined? You say its 10E25 ergs per year or 10E6 joules per sec? Which one is about right? How was the earthquake energy flux estimate determined?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 3 weeks ago #23998 by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Jim, No, I said it's 1E 25 ergs per year for earthquakes and a thousand times that 1E 28 ergs for radioactive decay. Earthquake activity is monitored globally and to give you an idea how accurate the equipment is, a seismological station in England picked up the sound of torpedoes blowing up on soviet sub the Kursk. Well it is possible that in any one year there might be a series of earthquakes, that kill thousands of people. Yet the yearly average stays about the same, it's just where they happen.

The data on radioactive decay obviously has to be an estimate of how much radioactive material the Earth actually contains but results from deep mines seem to confirm that estimate. 1E 28 ergs per year or 1E 6 Joules per second. I put the estimate in Joules simply for people who prefer to think in those units. Huge amounts of energy in any system of units.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.107 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum