1
00:00:10,580 --> 00:00:07,160
result now at the end up finally I'll

2
00:00:14,330 --> 00:00:10,590
mention that there is other evidence for

3
00:00:16,970 --> 00:00:14,340
a solar Association the Purdue people

4
00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:16,980
have their own experiment running in the

5
00:00:24,130 --> 00:00:20,730
laboratory in riverford you is I forget

6
00:00:27,769 --> 00:00:24,140
now this in the air is in the are they

7
00:00:30,730 --> 00:00:27,779
I've got neighbor city anyway they have

8
00:00:34,190 --> 00:00:30,740
found an association between

9
00:00:37,549 --> 00:00:34,200
fluctuations in the decay rate and solar

10
00:00:41,660 --> 00:00:37,559
flares and let's go let's go to the

11
00:00:43,340 --> 00:00:41,670
curve so the green curve the top or the

12
00:00:48,920 --> 00:00:43,350
blue curve is their measurements of

13
00:00:51,500 --> 00:00:48,930
decay rates or actually the number of an

14
00:00:54,410 --> 00:00:51,510
integral of the number of counts the

15
00:00:57,889 --> 00:00:54,420
green curve is a straight line which was

16
00:01:01,340 --> 00:00:57,899
the blue lion would follow if the decay

17
00:01:03,860 --> 00:01:01,350
rate were constant the red line is a

18
00:01:06,469 --> 00:01:03,870
measurement of x-ray data from flares

19
00:01:09,170 --> 00:01:06,479
that measurement from ago satellite that

20
00:01:14,929 --> 00:01:09,180
shows you an flare the car and this is a

21
00:01:19,460 --> 00:01:14,939
an expanded picture showing that at

22
00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:19,470
times of certain flares like this one

23
00:01:26,450 --> 00:01:23,090
the decay rate has dropped significantly

24
00:01:28,070 --> 00:01:26,460
now what's really interesting here if

25
00:01:30,319 --> 00:01:28,080
this is a real association we need to

26
00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:30,329
check this what's really interesting is

27
00:01:38,590 --> 00:01:34,530
that the decay rate begins to drop

28
00:01:44,050 --> 00:01:38,600
before the flare and if this is a real

29
00:01:46,310 --> 00:01:44,060
phenomenon it's going to be a predictive

30
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:46,320
process that we are predict when if

31
00:01:51,319 --> 00:01:48,810
there's going to happen by monitoring a

32
00:01:54,800 --> 00:01:51,329
decay rate of elements how could this

33
00:01:57,709 --> 00:01:54,810
possibly happen well we know the flare

34
00:02:02,359 --> 00:01:57,719
that use magnetic fields at the surface

35
00:02:04,010 --> 00:02:02,369
of the sun in certain complex fields

36
00:02:09,219 --> 00:02:04,020
with strong field would give rise to

37
00:02:10,940 --> 00:02:09,229
flares we know that the neutrino flux is

38
00:02:12,290 --> 00:02:10,950
influenced or can

39
00:02:14,809 --> 00:02:12,300
influenced by the internal magnetic

40
00:02:17,780 --> 00:02:14,819
field and so the interpretation would be

41
00:02:19,940 --> 00:02:17,790
but a very strong flux tube is bubbling

42
00:02:22,550 --> 00:02:19,950
up from deep down in the Sun towards the

43
00:02:24,460 --> 00:02:22,560
surface as it bubbles up it begins to

44
00:02:28,009 --> 00:02:24,470
interfere with the flux of neutrinos

45
00:02:30,410 --> 00:02:28,019
that gives rise to a decay to drop in

46
00:02:32,990 --> 00:02:30,420
the decay rate when that flux tube

47
00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:33,000
arrives are at the surface this big

48
00:02:38,229 --> 00:02:35,130
complex flux tube begins to become

49
00:02:40,369 --> 00:02:38,239
unstable and gives rise to flares so

50
00:02:42,410 --> 00:02:40,379
this is something that really needs to

51
00:02:45,199 --> 00:02:42,420
be followed up very carefully it's great

52
00:02:48,530 --> 00:02:45,209
interest to the Air Force and probably

53
00:02:50,479 --> 00:02:48,540
other agencies to this is where we are I

54
00:02:53,110 --> 00:02:50,489
think it's a very exciting project so

55
00:02:56,870 --> 00:02:53,120
sum up they're very strong evidence that

56
00:03:01,580 --> 00:02:56,880
the decay rates of radioactive elements

57
00:03:04,130 --> 00:03:01,590
does vary with time I believe that good

58
00:03:06,949 --> 00:03:04,140
evidence that there is an association

59
00:03:26,629 --> 00:03:06,959
with neutrino flux that is something

60
00:03:30,759 --> 00:03:26,639
that remains to be further studied we

61
00:03:57,699 --> 00:03:30,769
have plenty of time for questions

62
00:04:04,819 --> 00:04:00,589
it takes certain magnet fuel

63
00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:04,829
configurations to influence internal my

64
00:04:09,920 --> 00:04:07,530
nephew Institute to to to influence a

65
00:04:13,729 --> 00:04:09,930
new fee no flux and so it's quite

66
00:04:15,319 --> 00:04:13,739
possible that certain flux tubes have

67
00:04:17,810 --> 00:04:15,329
the right orientation and the right

68
00:04:20,330 --> 00:04:17,820
strength to affect the decay rates other

69
00:04:22,460 --> 00:04:20,340
flux tubes have the wrong orientation or

70
00:04:36,549 --> 00:04:22,470
the wrong strength and they do not

71
00:04:45,559 --> 00:04:41,959
I'm going to another Island in Okinawa

72
00:05:04,519 --> 00:04:45,569
state in Japan in July to do an eclipse

73
00:05:08,089 --> 00:05:04,529
to take part in Eclipse experiment some

74
00:05:14,100 --> 00:05:08,099
and yet we don't normally do random

75
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:17,570
just wondering in light of these days

76
00:05:23,910 --> 00:05:20,970
we need to reconsider how we interpret

77
00:05:32,510 --> 00:05:23,920
what a radioactive decay process

78
00:05:40,140 --> 00:05:37,200
yes do we need to reconsider what we

79
00:05:41,940 --> 00:05:40,150
meet by random process since we normally

80
00:05:46,530 --> 00:05:41,950
think of a random process is one that is

81
00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:46,540
a constant in time a certain fixed event

82
00:05:54,110 --> 00:05:48,730
rate and time and here we have event

83
00:05:56,990 --> 00:05:54,120
rates that vary in time and I think

84
00:06:02,400 --> 00:05:57,000
they're probably in physics many I mean

85
00:06:05,310 --> 00:06:02,410
in in chemistry you have chemical

86
00:06:08,450 --> 00:06:05,320
reactions going on if you look at it in

87
00:06:11,820 --> 00:06:08,460
a microsecond time scale it might be

88
00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:11,830
looking random looking on a two-day

89
00:06:19,250 --> 00:06:15,250
timescale it looks perfectly steady so I

90
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:19,260
think that there are many cases where

91
00:06:24,510 --> 00:06:22,810
phenomenon where events occur that a

92
00:06:27,210 --> 00:06:24,520
random if you look at the most short

93
00:06:30,390 --> 00:06:27,220
time scale but not randoms you come on a

94
00:06:32,490 --> 00:06:30,400
long time scale I'll ask further people

95
00:06:34,770 --> 00:06:32,500
asking questions who please speak up

96
00:06:47,200 --> 00:06:34,780
loudly so that the whole room can hear

97
00:06:54,370 --> 00:06:50,920
and about 25 years ago under the massive

98
00:07:00,480 --> 00:06:54,380
screening of biological processes vs vs

99
00:07:05,910 --> 00:07:03,820
yes libraries news and I kept getting

100
00:07:08,010 --> 00:07:05,920
very

101
00:07:13,740 --> 00:07:08,020
with

102
00:07:22,030 --> 00:07:13,750
so perhaps

103
00:07:27,910 --> 00:07:26,119
processes possibility

104
00:07:31,000 --> 00:07:27,920
ass is

105
00:07:39,940 --> 00:07:31,010
patience for the operation of atomic

106
00:07:44,110 --> 00:07:39,950
clocks implications with other of atomic

107
00:07:45,970 --> 00:07:44,120
clocks a good one I mean if the elements

108
00:07:50,620 --> 00:07:45,980
involved are elements would have been

109
00:07:52,720 --> 00:07:50,630
found to vary in time the hey rates then

110
00:07:56,140 --> 00:07:52,730
obviously you have to be says you have

111
00:07:59,440 --> 00:07:56,150
to reconsider what you consider to be a

112
00:08:01,420 --> 00:07:59,450
stable clock the first point I'd love to

113
00:08:03,700 --> 00:08:01,430
get hold of your data on these

114
00:08:15,490 --> 00:08:03,710
biological processes and compare them

115
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:15,500
with neutrinos and other data yeah there

116
00:08:33,570 --> 00:08:17,690
are museums with those pieces of

117
00:08:45,010 --> 00:08:38,490
years old so we had sort of the same

118
00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:45,020
number but we see that things look at

119
00:08:50,590 --> 00:08:48,010
this kind of see things like overs and

120
00:08:54,130 --> 00:08:50,600
other processes may be that we can't

121
00:08:57,180 --> 00:08:54,140
detail doesn't this really called into

122
00:09:02,360 --> 00:08:57,190
question some of our radioactive 80

123
00:09:09,630 --> 00:09:05,250
the question is this corner question our

124
00:09:11,520 --> 00:09:09,640
youth of radioactive dating and the

125
00:09:13,140 --> 00:09:11,530
possibly one has to look at the elements

126
00:09:16,290 --> 00:09:13,150
involved and look at this annual

127
00:09:20,070 --> 00:09:16,300
variation data and see if any I think it

128
00:09:23,490 --> 00:09:20,080
means that we need to look much more

129
00:09:26,460 --> 00:09:23,500
closely at decay rate estimates and what

130
00:09:29,430 --> 00:09:26,470
typically you see people follow up decay

131
00:09:30,870 --> 00:09:29,440
rates for a year and you know smooth

132
00:09:32,820 --> 00:09:30,880
things out and that gives an average

133
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:32,830
decay rate what they think is the decay

134
00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:35,530
rate if you know decay rate varies in

135
00:09:41,400 --> 00:09:38,290
time obviously you're going to have to

136
00:09:43,950 --> 00:09:41,410
take much longer measurements much more

137
00:09:46,560 --> 00:09:43,960
carefully and then in future you have to

138
00:09:55,380 --> 00:09:46,570
take into account time variation of

139
00:09:58,260 --> 00:09:55,390
decay rate sort of all hollow question