Hidden Variable Theory Supports Variability in Decay Rates of Nuclides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM- The orthodox expectation is for decay rates to be strictly constant for all types of decay (β+, β-, EC, α). However empirical results show strong evidence for nuclides having variable decay rates, typically evident as periodicity. The volume of data available suggests this is a real phenomenon, not merely a spurious outcome of measurement errors. However the problem is complex because the data are conflicted for different decays. Consequently it is a significant challenge to explain how the variability might arise, what factors could be involved, and how the underlying mechanisms of causality might operate. PURPOSE- This paper develops a theoretical explanation of the variability of nuclide decay rates. APPROACH- The non-local hidden-variable solution provided by the Cordus theory was used, specifically its mechanics for neutrino-species interactions with nucleons. FINDINGS- It is predicted that the β-, β+ and electron capture processes are induced by pre-supply of neutrino-species, and that the effects are asymmetrical for those species. Also predicted is that different input energies are required, i.e. that a threshold effect exists. Four simple non-contentious lemmas are proposed with which it is straightforward to explain why β- and EC would be enhanced and correlate to solar neutrino flux (proximity & activity), and α emission unaffected. It is shown that the concept of a neutrino-species asymmetry makes sense of the broad patterns evident in the empirical data. IMPLICATIONS- The results support the variability of decay rates, on theoretical grounds. The type of decay (β+, β-, EC, α) is found to be a key variable in this theory, as is the type of neutrino species and its energy. ORIGINALITY- The novel contribution is the provision of a theoretical explanation for why decay rates would be variable. A detailed mechanism is presented for neutrino-species induced decay. Also novel is the prediction that the interaction is asymmetrical, and that the energy requirements are different for the various types of decay.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".