Paper detail

Concerning the Phases of Annual Variations of Nuclear Decay Rates

Recent analyses of datasets acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt both show evidence of pronounced annual variations, suggestive of a solar influence. However, the phases of decay-rate maxima do not correspond precisely to the phase of minimum Sun-Earth distance, as might then be expected. We here examine the hypothesis that decay rates are influenced by an unknown solar radiation, but that the intensity of the radiation is influenced not only by the variation in Sun-Earth distance, but also by a possible North-South asymmetry in the solar emission mechanism. We find that this can lead to phases of decay-rate maxima in the range 0 to 0.183 or 0.683 to 1 (September 6 to March 8) but that, according to this hypothesis, phases in the range 0.183 to 0.683 (March 8 to September 6) are "forbidden." We find that phases of the three datasets here analyzed fall in the allowed range.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.