Skip to main content

Gran Sasso, Solar Neutrinos, and Radioactive Decay Rates

We interrupt your normal coverage of magnetic monopole searches today to bring you something much more cool from well.. the same location!  I was jazzed to find out yesterday that the next monopole project I was going to write about was done at a stunningly pretty location Gran Sasso, Italy. (picture 1)

Then, thanks to +Oliver Thewalt I found out about a very interesting study done regarding a possible time dependence of the decay rates of radioactive isotopes.  So much for the pretty location I thought, but the science is incredibly interesting.  Then, while reading up on the research this morning I found out that one of the studies[2] was performed at none other than the very same lab in Gran Sasso.  And we're back to where we started and I get to include a pretty picture with the post!  OK, OK enough with the cool coincidences and the small world of science for today.

So, here's what's going on in a nutshell.  Radioactive elements decay in a random fashion, but at a very well defined rate.  In other words, you never know exactly when the next individual atom of the material will decay, but you do know with great certainty how long it will take for half of the material to decay.  For example, the carbon dating process is based on the certainty of the half life of carbon 14[5].  Until recently, the rate of decay was thought to be a constant.  Then, a researcher at Purdue University, Ephraim Fischbach, noticed what looked like a periodic variation in the decay rate of radioactive materials over the course of months and sometimes years.  Additional research revealed that there might be a correlation between this measured variation and the neutrino output from the sun.  For a great summary of the research check out the Stanford backgrounder on the subject [3].  The graph shown in picture 2 is from Fischbach's paper.  It shows the variation in the decay rate of radium 226 with time and correlates the decay rate variation with the variation of the distance between the Earth and the Sun, (shown as a solid line)[6][7].

Gran Sasso
You thought I forgot about Gran Sasso didn't you?  They performed an experiment which they believe refutes the relationship found by Fischbach et al.  Here's a quote from the conclusion of their paper[2][2a]

" clear contradiction with previous experimental results and their interpretation as indication of a novel field (or particle) from the Sun..."

The experiment was done at Gran Sasso because conditions there were great.  The laboratory is actually located underground, (under a lot of ground), and well protected from variations in both electromagnetic fields and temperatures (picture 3).

The results are still up in the air.  The Fischbach group responded to the Gran Sasso paper[8], and Fischbach believed in the results enough to file for a patent on a solar event detector based on the results in 2008[4], (picture 4).

There will be much more on all this to follow.

1.  The latest and greatest from Jenkins, Fischbach, et al. (open access)

2.  The Gran Sasso null result
Bellotti E., Broggini C., Di Carlo G., Laubenstein M. & Menegazzo R. (2012). Search for time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant, Physics Letters B, 710 (1) 114-117. DOI:

2.a.  The Gran Sasso paper in open access

3.  Stanford sums it up

4.  Fischbach's patent

5.  Carbon dating on Wikipedia

6.  Fischbach et al.'s first paper from 2008 (open access)

7.  The same paper in the journals
Jenkins J.H., Fischbach E., Buncher J.B., Gruenwald J.T., Krause D.E. & Mattes J.J. (2009). Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance, Astroparticle Physics, 32 (1) 42-46. DOI:

8.  Response to the Gran Sasso paper (open access)


Popular posts from this blog

Cool Math Tricks: Deriving the Divergence, (Del or Nabla) into New (Cylindrical) Coordinate Systems

The following is a pretty lengthy procedure, but converting the divergence, (nabla, del) operator between coordinate systems comes up pretty often. While there are tables for converting between common coordinate systems, there seem to be fewer explanations of the procedure for deriving the conversion, so here goes!

What do we actually want?

To convert the Cartesian nabla

to the nabla for another coordinate system, say… cylindrical coordinates.

What we’ll need:

1. The Cartesian Nabla:

2. A set of equations relating the Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates:

3. A set of equations relating the Cartesian basis vectors to the basis vectors of the new coordinate system:

How to do it:

Use the chain rule for differentiation to convert the derivatives with respect to the Cartesian variables to derivatives with respect to the cylindrical variables.

The chain rule can be used to convert a differential operator in terms of one variable into a series of differential operators in terms of othe…

Lab Book 2014_07_10 More NaI Characterization

Summary: Much more plunking around with the NaI detector and sources today.  A Pb shield was built to eliminate cosmic ray muons as well as potassium 40 radiation from the concreted building.  The spectra are much cleaner, but still don't have the count rates or distinctive peaks that are expected.
New to the experiment?  Scroll to the bottom to see background and get caught up.
Lab Book Threshold for the QVT is currently set at -1.49 volts.  Remember to divide this by 100 to get the actual threshold voltage. A new spectrum recording the lines of all three sources, Cs 137, Co 60, and Sr 90, was started at approximately 10:55. Took data for about an hour.
Started the Cs 137 only spectrum at about 11:55 AM

Here’s the no-source background from yesterday
In comparison, here’s the 3 source spectrum from this morning.

The three source spectrum shows peak structure not exhibited by the background alone. I forgot to take scope pictures of the Cs137 run. I do however, have the printout, and…

Unschooling Math Jams: Squaring Numbers in their own Base

Some of the most fun I have working on math with seven year-old No. 1 is discovering new things about math myself.  Last week, we discovered that square of any number in its own base is 100!  Pretty cool!  As usual we figured it out by talking rather than by writing things down, and as usual it was sheer happenstance that we figured it out at all.  Here’s how it went.

I've really been looking forward to working through multiplication ala binary numbers with seven year-old No. 1.  She kind of beat me to the punch though: in the last few weeks she's been learning her multiplication tables in base 10 on her own.  This became apparent when five year-old No. 2 decided he wanted to do some 'schoolwork' a few days back.

"I can sing that song... about the letters? all by myself now!"  2 meant the alphabet song.  His attitude towards academics is the ultimate in not retaining unnecessary facts, not even the name of the song :)

After 2 had worked his way through the so…