Don't the magnetic poles affect radioactive decay?

In summary: The fluctuation of the Earth's magnetic field at a given location from day to day is not significant, so the clock can keep accurate time over short periods. But over long periods, the Earth's magnetic field can change significantly. In that case, the clock will need to take into account the changing magnetic field by frequent recalibration.In summary, the conversation discusses the accuracy and reliability of carbon dating and how it is affected by various factors such as cosmic rays and magnetic fields. It also mentions the use of the caesium standard for atomic clocks and how it can be affected by the Earth's magnetic field. Overall, it is important to consider and account for these factors when using scientific techniques such as carbon dating and atomic clocks.
  • #1
Tzimtzum
2
0
Also, How do we know the radioactive decay is constant? I know that carbon dating cannot be 100% accurate because the rate of production fluctuates based on cosmic rays hitting our upper atmosphere. Why isn't this true with Earth metal isotopes?

Is time truly constant? It seems like a lot of variables could make it fluctuate.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
Assuming your post is focused entirely on carbon-14 age dating, you've asked several questions; for starters, all radioactive decay processes other than electron capture have fixed rates.
Tzimtzum said:
Why isn't this true with Earth metal isotopes?
Does that clear up that first question?
Tzimtzum said:
Is time truly constant?
Paraphrasing, you mean to ask, "Is a measured carbon-14 age invariant?"
No.
Tzimtzum said:
It seems like a lot of variables could make it fluctuate.
You have noted that the production rate varies, depending on cosmic rays, shielding by the magnetic poles, and other things.
Wiki isn't too bad a start for some of the mistakes that have been made in applying the technique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
 
  • #3
Tzimtzum said:
Also, How do we know the radioactive decay is constant?

We have lots and lots and lots of evidence suggesting that most types of decay are constant and very little/no evidence suggesting otherwise. There are a few elements that can have slight variability in their decay, but these are known and accounted for. More info here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html

Tzimtzum said:
I know that carbon dating cannot be 100% accurate because the rate of production fluctuates based on cosmic rays hitting our upper atmosphere

It's not 100% accurate because 100% accuracy is impossible. The fact that carbon-14 is produced by cosmic rays is what allows us to do carbon dating in the first place. Fluctuations in the rate of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere probably averages itself out in the long term, which is what matters. The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere changes very little on a shot term basis.

Tzimtzum said:
Why isn't this true with Earth metal isotopes?

See my link above.

Tzimtzum said:
Is time truly constant? It seems like a lot of variables could make it fluctuate.

Time is relative and can be different for different observers, though each observer sees themselves as passing through time at a rate of one second per second. However there are actually very, very few variables and time doesn't fluctuate the way you're most likely imagining it can. Look into Special and General Relativity for more info.
 
  • #4
Oh wow, I was really was tired when I wrote this. I meant to say atomic decay not radioactive decay. Though the fluctuation of radioactive decay is what original made me wonder about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_standard
"By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz."

Does this mean the Caesium standard is influenced by the magnetic field? The poles are shifting more and more each year. I think it's at 40 miles per year now. Would this affect the atomic decay?
 
  • #5
Tzimtzum said:
Oh wow, I was really was tired when I wrote this. I meant to say atomic decay not radioactive decay. Though the fluctuation of radioactive decay is what original made me wonder about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_standard
"By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz."

Does this mean the Caesium standard is influenced by the magnetic field? The poles are shifting more and more each year. I think it's at 40 miles per year now. Would this affect the atomic decay?
Even using the term "atomic decay" is reminiscent of radioactivity.

The energy levels of all atoms are affected by external magnetic fields. Some levels will shift to higher energies in the presence of the field, other will shift down in energy. Except for very strong magnetic fields (and the Earth's magnetic field is very weak), this shift in energy is minuscule. Nevertheless, when building a very-high-precision atomic clock, tiny shifts can introduce significant errors.

One way to maintain a high precision is built in the standard itself: only one substate of each of these two hyperfine ground states of caesium is considered, ##M_F = 0##, because these states are not affected by a magnetic field, to first order. But higher-order terms are still relevant to achieve high precision. So additional measures are taken, such as magnetic shielding or using external magnetic fields to counteract the Earth's magnetic field.

The shift in the Earth's magnetic field is not very important. What is important is the local value of the field where the clock is.
 
  • Like
Likes Tzimtzum

1. How do the magnetic poles affect radioactive decay?

The magnetic poles do not directly affect radioactive decay. However, they can indirectly influence the rate of decay by altering the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches Earth's surface. This radiation can cause changes in the atomic structure of certain elements, which can affect their rate of decay.

2. Can changes in the magnetic poles affect the accuracy of radiometric dating?

Yes, changes in the magnetic poles can potentially affect the accuracy of radiometric dating. This is because the strength and direction of the Earth's magnetic field can influence the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches Earth's surface, which in turn can affect the rate of radioactive decay in certain elements. However, scientists have developed methods to account for these potential variations and still obtain accurate dates.

3. Are there any specific types of radioactive elements that are more affected by changes in the magnetic poles?

Yes, certain types of radioactive elements with shorter half-lives, such as carbon-14, are more susceptible to changes in the magnetic poles. This is because they decay at a faster rate and are therefore more likely to be affected by fluctuations in cosmic radiation levels.

4. Is there a direct correlation between the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and the rate of radioactive decay?

No, there is no direct correlation between the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and the rate of radioactive decay. While changes in the magnetic field can indirectly influence the rate of decay, the two are not directly related. Additionally, the Earth's magnetic field has been fluctuating for millions of years, while the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

5. Can the magnetic poles completely stop or reverse the process of radioactive decay?

No, the magnetic poles cannot completely stop or reverse the process of radioactive decay. While they can influence the rate of decay by altering the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches Earth's surface, they cannot completely stop or reverse the natural process of decay in radioactive elements.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
710
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
3
Views
794
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
0
Views
599
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top