[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 8 KB, 202x251, Albert.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1687186 No.1687186 [Reply] [Original]

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

QM phenomena are deterministic after all.

Suck it Bohr

>> No.1687251

That settles it, the sun-worshippers were right.
checkmate for atheists and christians, brace for 2012

>> No.1687277

holy shit our sun is controlling everything in quantum mechanics we thought was random!!!

>> No.1687341

>QM phenomena are deterministic after all.

So maybe the sun has an effect on decay rates of radiocative atoms, but this still does not tell you when a precise atom does decay or not, it just tells you the overall number that will decay in given time supposed all of these numbers are vast enough to be representative for the statistic

lrn2QM faggot

>> No.1687342

So, why havent they shot some neutrinos into something to see if the decaying rate changes?

>> No.1687343

Explain this shit, scientists.

nb4 "fucking miracle"

>> No.1687351

Dark matter must be affecting the atoms somehow.

>> No.1687356

>>1687343
Inb4 stop inb4ing

>> No.1687371

Can string theory explain this?

>implying anyone on here actually knows enough about string theory to answer this question

>> No.1687372
File: 20 KB, 254x251, 1283348292176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1687372

>> No.1687376

by just reading the first paragraph, i immediately though "weak decay is influenced by neutrino flux from the sun"
i totally love when i have random thoughts that turn out to be dead-on
this wouldn't be surprising, but interesting

>> No.1687395

>No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.
well, that's just bullshit
it should be pretty obvious that, if a neutrino is close enough to an atom to have weak interactions with the core, those weak interactions change the probability of a tunneling event

>> No.1687406

well, fuck

2012

>> No.1687417
File: 8 KB, 363x360, 1278945581711.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1687417

So radioactive dating is not reliable? The age of the earth...

>> No.1687433

I'm thinking this doesn't really change the age of radio-isotope dated samples, just widens the margin of error. Like maybe +/- another few million on a sample billions of years old? Am I right?

If I'm wrong, than how much extra error would we actually be talking about?

>> No.1687444

>>1687433
We'd have to know what the apparent discrepancy is, and if it applies to all isotopes or not.

Right now, for all we know, this means the Earth is OLDER than what we think it is.

>> No.1687447

>>1687433
probably in the neighborhood of +/- a few thousand years on something that's billions of years old

>> No.1687458

>>1687417
>So radioactive dating is not reliable?
Thanks for showing that your reading comprehension is at kindergarten level.
>The age of the earth...
Is around 4.5 billion years.

>> No.1687467

>>1687417

atheists have a much bigger problem explaining away the wild fluctuations in athmospheric levels of C14

>> No.1687470

>>1687417
Even so, it's a hell of a stretch to claim that radioactive dating is off by a factor of a million.

>> No.1687530

sage for trying to subtly start a religious debate.

>> No.1687578

>>1687467
What have atheists to do with C14 radio active dating?

You know, atheists dont believe in God. That has nothing to do with radio active dating.

>> No.1687633

>>1687186

determinism fail