Hi,
Thoroughly searching the web for "decay rates", I've found this
excellent article, published in the year 2000:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html
The paper mentioned in the article,
S.E. Shnoll, V.A. Kolombet, E.V. Pozharskii, T.A. Zenchenko, I.M.
Zvereva, and A.A. Konradov, 1998. "Realization of discrete states during
fluctuations in macroscopic processes," in Uspekhi Fisicheskikh Nauk,
Vol. 41, No. 10, pp. 1025-1035.
summarizes the result of 40 years of investigation by Shnoll et al in
non-random fluctuations of supposedly random phenomena, and their
relation to cosmic cycles.
>From the article:
"Examining the distribution of time intervals between "similar"
histograms, they found strong peaks at 0 hours (that is, histograms made
independently at the same time tend to be similar), at approximately 24
hours, at 27.28 days (probably corresponding to the *synodic rotation of
the Sun*), and at three time intervals close to a year: 364.4, 365.2 and
366.6 days.
More recent data, just reported to the author, indicate that *the
"24-hour" period is actually slightly shorter, and corresponds quite
precisely to a sidereal day!* The latter would suggest, that *at least
one astronomical factor influencing histogram shape may originate
/outside/* the solar system, being associated with the orientation of
the measuring station relative to the galaxy, and not only relative to
the Sun.
Bolds are mine.
These effects are known since at least 50 years. At the end of Shnoll
historic paper, he mentions the reasons why he thinks their work was
ignored. I think it's valuable to copy it here:
*
When the 'Scientific Method' Obstructs Science
*/Excerpts from the "Conclusion" of Shnoll et al., "Realization of
discrete states during fluctuations in macroscopic processes," in
/Uspekhi Fisicheskikh Nauk,/ Vol. 41, No. 10, pp. 1025-1035.
/Concluding this brief account of studies performed at our laboratory,
we would like to anticipate some naturally arising questions. Forty
years have passed since our first publication in 1958. Why then have
there been no results from other laboratories? We believe that the main
reason is that other researchers are too well aware of the "principles
of science." We are talking of the "spread of readings" of measurements.
The "spread of readings" is something to be eliminated rather than
studied. When physicists or chemists get a scatter of data greater than
anticipated on account of inaccuracies of individual stages of
investigations, the physicist will reach out for his soldering iron and
screwdriver, and the chemist will check the purity of reactants and the
quality of distilled water.
Another reason is that the accepted methods of statistical data
processing based on the central limit theorems are not suited for
analysis of the fine structure of the distributions. The criteria of
conformity of hypotheses just "overlook" this fine structure. The
distributions are averaged and smoothed. . . . Moreover, the majority of
problems do not require knowledge of the fine structure of the
distributions.
A third reason is a lack of confidence that this phemomenon is at all
possible. The scatter of data is associated with the concept of "error."
We have spent many years looking for possible artifacts. Our main task
therefore consisted in proving the "theorem of existence." This task may
be deemed completed. The acceptance of the phenomenon itself---the
realization of the discrete spectrum of allowed states, which at any
given time is similar for processes of entirely different nature, and
which is attributable to to cosmophysical forces---requires some
psychological effort. . . .
There are many interesting problems that have to be studied. A number of
theorems need to be proved, and new computer techniques developed.
Experiments must be performed on satellites and space stations. A
network for simultaneous measurements at different geographcial
locations ought to be organized. Finally, and most importantly, we need
to develop a theory that will explain the nature of this phenomenon. All
this is to be done in the future. The task of this paper is
accomplished---we have introduced the object of future research.
Best regards,
Mauro
On 08/31/2010 09:01 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
> Sirs,
>
> I've read the preprints of your recent papers related to changes in
> decay rates
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
>
> In the first paper a number of possible systematic causes are checked,
> and the conclusion states that none of them can explain the changes in
> decay rates. It's also mentioned that although the cause has probably a
> solar origin, the phase shift between the inverse of the Sun-Earth
> distance and the decay rate changes hasn't been accounted for.
>
> I think that I have a potential explanation for the phase shift:
> If you plot the magnitude of Earth's velocity around the Sun, you'll not
> get a match in phase with the decay data, but if you add the velocity
> components of the solar system towards the Solar Apex, the match is
> quite good:
> http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/hl_bnl_VSolarApex.png
>
> In that graph, the red line is 1/R^2-1. This is similar to the original
> bnl graph, and both lines are in fact superimposed.
>
> The green line is Earth's velocity plus the velocity of the solar system
> towards the Solar Apex.
>
> I took the direction of the Solar Apex from the literature. In this
> graph, the direction of the Solar Apex is in ecliptic coordinates, long.
> 260 degrees, lat 53.19 degrees, and velocity 16.6 km/s.
>
> So, changes in decay rates could be related to changes in velocity of
> the Earth towards the Solar Apex.
> The idea of velocity being responsible makes sense: At a higher
> velocity, more particles (neutrinos?) will cross the radioactive sample
> by unit time, increasing the probability of a nuclear collision that
> will result in a decay. This is similar, in a sense, to the way a car is
> subjected to increased friction depending on its velocity.
>
> It's also very interesting to note that the relation between decay rates
> and this velocity is inverse (note the minus sign in the dividend at the
> end of the formula for the green line). When the velocity is smaller
> (more negative), the effect is greater. That means that when the Earth
> is traveling against the general direction of movement towards the Solar
> Apex, the decay rate increases, and vice versa.
> This can be explained by the Earth having to overcome a 'wind' that is
> blowing towards that point, in a similar way that a runner encounters
> more resistance running against the wind that along the wind.
>
> I've also plotted other potential cause, namely, Earth's velocity plus
> Local Standard of Rest (LSR) velocity:
> http://maurol.com.ar/decay_rates/hl_bnl_VLSR.png
>
> In this second graph, LSR is in ecliptic coordinates, long. 347 degrees,
> lat 59.57 degrees, and velocity 220 km/s. That is equivalent to a
> movement of the LSR in the general direction of galactic rotation:
> galactic longitude 90 degrees, galactic latitude 0 degrees.
>
> In this case, Earth's velocity towards the LSR is not reversed. I think
> this match is not so good, and would not explain the effect so well as
> the previous one, but please judge for yourselves.
>
> Probably you can suggest further tests or shortcomings of the
> hypothesis. I would also like to match the other datasets against these
> velocities, but the other published graphs are not so clear as the bnl
> graph is.
>
> Best regards, and please let me know what you think.
>
> Mauro Lacy
>
>
>
