Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates · 2021. 7. 8. · Jere Jenkins Ephraim Fischbach. Peter Sturrock. Ed Merritt. Josh Mattes. Tasneem Mohsinally. Dan Mundy. John

Fischbach, Jenkins, and Sturrock et al.;Rencontres de Moriond; La Thuile, Italy 2011

Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates

Jere JenkinsEphraim Fischbach

Peter SturrockEd MerrittJosh MattesTasneem MohsinallyDan MundyJohn NewportBen Revis

John BuncherTom GruenwaldJordan HeimDan JavorsekDennis KrauseAnthony LasenbyAndrew Longman


Publications to date• Jenkins, J.H. and E. Fischbach, Perturbation of nuclear decay rates during the solar flare of 2006

December 13. Astroparticle Physics, 2009. 31(6): p. 407-411. [doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.04.005]

• Jenkins, J.H., et al., Evidence of Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance. Astroparticle Physics, 2009. 32(1): p. 42-46. [doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004]

• Fischbach, E., et al., Time-Dependent Nuclear Decay Parameters: New Evidence for New Forces? Space Science Reviews, 2009. 145(3): p. 285-335. [doi: 10.1007/s11214-009-9518-5]

• Jenkins, J.H., D.W. Mundy, and E. Fischbach, Analysis of environmental influences in nuclear half-life measurements exhibiting time-dependent decay rates. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 2010. 620(2-3): p. 332-342. [doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.03.129]

• Sturrock, P.A., et al., Power spectrum analysis of BNL decay rate data. Astroparticle Physics, 2010. 34(2): p. 121-127. [doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.06.004]

• Lindstrom, R. M., et al., Study of the dependence of 198Au half-life on source geometry, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A, 622 (2010) 93. [doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.06.270]

• Javorsek II, D., et al., Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates. Astroparticle Physics, 2010. 34(3): p. 173-178. [doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.06.011]

• Fischbach, E., et al., Evidence for Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates. Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, editor V.A. Kostelecky, World Scientific, Singapore, In Press. 2010.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.04.005�


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11214-009-9518-5�

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.03.129�


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.06.270�



Background




116mIn Decay

y = -0.000203x + 6.044443R2 = 0.980358

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Time (s)

Cou

nts/

10s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ln(c

ount

s/10

s)

Counts ln(counts) Linear (ln(counts))


116mIn Decay

y = 421.762694e-0.000203x

R2 = 0.980358

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Time (s)

Cou

nts/

10s

Counts Expon. (Counts)

1 2 56 minT ≈



Motivation


A New Test of Randomness


Decay Rate Fluctuations


Brookhaven National Laboratory

Measurement of 32Si Half-lifeDavid Alburger

Garman HarbottleEleanor Norton


D.E. Alburger, G. Harbottle, E.F. Norton, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 78 (1986) 168.











Physikalisch-TechnischeBundesanstalt (PTB)

Europium Half-lives and Long Term Detector Stability

Helmut SiegertHeinrich SchraderUlrich Schoetzig


H. Siegert, H. Schrader, U. Schoetzig, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 49 (1998) 1397.


H. Siegert, H. Schrader, U. Schoetzig, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 49 (1998) 1397.


Purdue Experiments


T1/2=1953d

T1/2=313.5d





(7.51 1.07) x 105

Events missing




40 hours precursor



5 Dec 2006: X-9 class flare


13 Dec 2006: X3/4B Flare




16.22

16.23

16.24

16.25

16.26

16.27

16.28

16.29

16.3

11/28 12/2 12/6 12/10 12/14 12/18 12/22 12/26 12/30 1/3

ln(C

R)

Date (2008)

Logarithmic Decay of 54Mn for December 2008

ln(gross) Linear (ln(gross))


16.245

16.25

16.255

16.26

16.265

16.27

16.275

16.28

12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23

ln(C

R)

Date (2008)


ln(gross) Linear (ln(gross))


SOLAR ACTIVITY: Hours ago, something on the far side of the sun exploded and hurled a massive cloud of debris (a CME) over the eastern limb. Using a coronagraph to block the sun's glare, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) photographed the cloud expanding into space:

NASA's Stereo-B spacecraft is stationed over the sun's eastern limb, but it was not taking pictures at the probable time of the eruption, so details of the blast are unknown. The CME could herald an active region (e.g., a sunspot or perhaps an unstable magnetic filament) turning to face Earth in the days ahead.


y = -0.0022514x + 105.8637406R² = 0.9977750

y = -0.0008937x + 51.8287553R² = 0.5886092

16.245

16.25

16.255

16.26

16.265

16.27

16.275

16.28

12/9 12/10 12/11 12/12 12/13 12/14 12/15 12/16 12/17 12/18 12/19 12/20 12/21 12/22 12/23

ln(C

R)

Date (2008)


ln(gross) 12/14-12/16 Linear (ln(gross))

Linear (12/14-12/16) Linear (12/14-12/16)

Non Earth-directed large CMErecorded by SOHO at 0942 16 Dec 08 UT

T1/2=776d

T1/2=307d


Data from Yoo, et al., Phys Rev D 68, 092002 (2003)

Solar Neutrinos?Super-K Data

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

10/28/95 3/11/97 7/24/98 12/6/99 4/19/01 9/1/02Date

Nor

mal

ized

Nu-

flux

0.96

0.97

0.98

0.99

1

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1/R

2 , a.u

.-2

7 Pt Avgd Normalized Phi-nu 1/R 2̂

Correlation = 0.38, 181 points, prob=3x10-7


Eccentricity of Earth’s Orbit


Back to BNL and PTB


Pearson Correlation Coefficient r=0.52, N=239, Prob=4.17x10-18

Data from: Alburger, et al., Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett., 78, (1986) 168-176

Normalized BNL With Earth-Sun Distance

0.997

0.998

0.999

1.000

1.001

1.002

1.003

08/8

1

02/8

2

09/8

2

03/8

3

10/8

3

04/8

4

11/8

4

06/8

5

12/8

5

07/8

6

Date

BN

L U

(t)

0.96

0.97

0.98

0.99

1.00

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1/R2 (a

.u.-2

)

Normalized Un-decayed BNL Uncertainty USNO 1/R^2

Representative 1σ Error for BNL Data



Data from: Alburger, et al., Earth and Planet. Sci. Lett., 78, (1986) 168-176

7 Pt Avg'd Normalized BNL With Earth-Sun Distance

0.9980

0.9990

1.0000

1.0010

1.0020

08/8

1

02/8

2

09/8

2

03/8

3

10/8

3

04/8

4

11/8

4

06/8

5

12/8

5

07/8

6

Date

Nor

mal

ized

BN

L

0.96

0.97

0.98

0.99

1.00

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1/R

^2 (a

.u.^

2)

Un-decayed 7pt avg USNO 1/R^2



Data from Siegert, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 49, 1397 (1998) Fig. 1

Raw Undecayed 226Ra PTB Data with Earth-Sun Distance

0.995

0.996

0.997

0.998

0.999

1

1.001

1.002

1.003

1.004

1.005

3/23

/83

3/22

/84

3/22

/85

3/22

/86

3/22

/87

3/21

/88

3/21

/89

3/21

/90

3/21

/91

3/20

/92

3/20

/93

3/20

/94

3/20

/95

3/19

/96

3/19

/97

3/19

/98

3/19

/99

3/18

/00

Date

Nor

mal

ized

226

Ra

Dat

a

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1/R

2 (a.u

.-2)

Normalized Undecayed USNO 1/R^2



Data from Siegert, et al., Appl. Radiat. Isot. 49, 1397 (1998) Fig. 1

7 Pt Avg Undecayed 226Ra PTB Data with Earth-Sun Distance

0.997

0.998

0.999

1

1.001

1.002

1.003

3/23

/83

3/22

/84

3/22

/85

3/22

/86

3/22

/87

3/21

/88

3/21

/89

3/21

/90

3/21

/91

3/20

/92

3/20

/93

3/20

/94

3/20

/95

3/19

/96

3/19

/97

3/19

/98

3/19

/99

3/18

/00

Date

Nor

mal

ized

226

Ra

Dat

a

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1/R2 (a

.u.-2

)

7 pt avg normalized undecayed USNO 1/R^2


BNL/PTB Correlation



BNL 32Si and PTB 226Ra Data with Earth-Sun Distance

0.998

0.999

1

1.001

1.002

1983.50 1984.00 1984.50 1985.00 1985.50 1986.00 1986.50

Date

BN

L an

d P

TB U

(t)

0.960.970.980.9911.011.021.031.04

1/R

2 (a.

u.-2

)

Raw BNL Raw PTB USNO 1/R^2



BNL 32Si and PTB 226Ra Data with Earth-Sun Distance

0.998

0.999

1

1.001

1.002

1983.50 1984.00 1984.50 1985.00 1985.50 1986.00 1986.50

Date

BN

L an

d P

TB U

(t)

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

1.04

1.06

1/R

2 (a.

u.-2

)

5 Pt Avg BNL 5 Pt Avg PTB USNO 1/R^2


Data from other institutions


ELLIS: CNRCData from other institutions



0.96

0.97

0.98

0.99

1.00

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

0.992

0.994

0.996

0.998

1

1.002

1.004

1.006

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

1/R

2(a

.u.-2

)

Nor

mal

ized

Dec

ay D

ata

Date

CNRC 238Pu/56Mn Data with 1/R2

Data from K. Ellis, Phys. Med. Biol., 35, 1079-1088 (1990)


OSURRData from other institutions


0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

0.98

0.985

0.99

0.995

1

1.005

1.01

1.015

1.02

12/31/2003 6/30/2004 12/30/2004 6/30/2005 12/30/2005 7/1/2006 12/30/2006 7/1/2007 12/31/2007 6/30/2008 12/30/2008 6/30/2009 12/30/2009

Hel

iola

titu

de a

nd 1

/R2

Nor

mal

ized

Cl-3

6 Co

unts

Date

Ohio State (Preliminary 36Cl)

Normalized Cl-36 Counts Fxn F (Heliolatitude and 1/R2)


OSU Power Spectrum


PARKHOMOVData from other institutions


Parkhomov, A.G., Researches of alpha and beta radioactivity at long-term observations, arXiv:1004.1761v1 [physics.gen-ph], (2010)


SIEGERT, PTB (EUROPIUM)Data from other institutions


H. Siegert, et al., Appl. Rad. & Isot., 49 (1998) 1397-1401


Data Summary

Experiment Detector TypeDecayType

MeasuredRadiation

TypeObservedVariations

PTB (226Ra) Ion Chamber Gas α, β, γ γ Annual

PTB (152Eu) GeLi Solid State ε, γ γ Annual

BNL (32Si/36Cl) Prop. Counter Gas β- β- Annual

Purdue (54Mn) NaI(Tl) Scintillator ε, γ γ Flare

CNRC (56Mn) NaI(Tl) Scintillator β-, γ γ Annual

OSU (36Cl) G-M Gas β- β- Annual

Parkhomov (90Sr/90Y-I) G-M Gas β- β- Annual

Parkhomov (90Sr/90Y-II) G-M Gas β- β- Annual

Parkhomov (60Co) G-M Gas β-, γ β-, γ Weak Annual

Parkhomov (239Pu) Si Solid State α α None


Possible Mechanisms


Possible Mechanisms and New Long Range Forces

• The Sun can influence nuclear decays either through new long-range fields or through particles such as neutrinos, axions, or other non-standard objects

• If the effect arises from a new long-range field, then any such field must have a range of ~1 a.u. Such spin-independent fields are highly constrained.

• If the sun influences nuclear decays through emission of particles, then these can influence nuclear decays through relatively short-range fields which tend to be less highly constrained.

• Spin-dependent long-range forces are relatively poorly constrained, and may provide an appropriate mechanism to explain time-varying decay rates.


Possible Mechanisms-I

• Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant α– This is an example of a mechanism whose

existence depends on a field whose range is ~1 a.u.

– Such a field is strongly constrained by both 5th force type experiments, and atomic physics experiments.


Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant alpha

For alpha decay (e.g., 226Ra arrow 222Rn + 4He)31 6.3 10

4v

Z cδα δ δα π α

−Γ Γ ≈ → × Γ Γ From our 226Ra data,

3 53 10 2 10δ δαα

− −Γ≈ × ⇒ ≈ ×

Γ

This may be incompatible with existing WEP and 5th force constraints.

References: D. J. Shaw, gr-qc/0702090; J.D. Barrow and D. J. Shaw,

arXiv:0806:4317; J.-P. Uzan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 403 (2003)


Possible Mechanisms-II

• Spin-dependent long range force coupling to neutrinos– This is an example of where a spin-

dependent force of relatively short range could provide an explanation of the decay data.


Spin-dependent long range force coupling to neutrinos

Δ


1. For beta-decay, where Gamma is extremely sensitive to small shifts in E0

2. Assume E0 arrow E0+Delat, where Delta arises from solar neutrinos, then

3. Next, assumewhere

4. For an un-polarized sample,

Variation in Solar Neutrino Flux2 2 2

0( )ed E E m E EdEΓ∝ − −

2 2 20 0 0( ) ( ) 2 ( )E E E E E E− → − + ∆ − + ∆

1 2 1 23ˆ ˆ[3( )( )A r r

rσ σ σ σ∆ = ⋅ ⋅ − ⋅

1 = νe , 2 = p,e,n,νe

(E0 − E)2 → (E0 − E)2 + ∆2


Variation in Solar Neutrino Flux (cont’d)5. Compare this to the change induced by

2 2 2 2 20

1 ( ) , 2v vFor E E m m− ∆ ⇒ ∆ ≈ −

(E0 − E)2 → (E0 − E) (E0 − E)2 − mv2

mν2 ≠ 0

2 2 2

2 2 2

= 100 eV to 10 eV .

50 eV to 5 eVvm − −

⇒ ∆ =This may be compatible with current limits on neutrino magnetic dipole moments.


Documents

Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates · 2021. 7. 8. · Jere Jenkins Ephraim Fischbach. Peter Sturrock. Ed Merritt. Josh Mattes. Tasneem Mohsinally. Dan Mundy. John