The answer appears to be yes (at least for electrical and mechanical means, don’t know for sure about chemical and biological means). A physics professor assigned our class term papers of our choosing. Our goal was to learn something new. I chose to explore the effects of electricity and chemistry on nuclear processes. I thought the professor would take my head off for such a radical claim, so I determined to look at mainstream peer-reviewed literature on the topic. We all had to make presentations of our term papers in class, and the professor had a big smile after I gave mine, he said, “that was the topic of the night!”
[The Vodka designation in the title indicates speculative ideas which may be wrong, but have data points worth considering]
How does this relate to ID? Radiometric dating has been considered the gold standard of dating fossils, but as has been pointed out, there are conflicting radiometric dates. We have C14 in biological tissue and coal and oil indicating the fossils and fossil fuels are young, yet we have them around old rocks. I’ve said, old rocks don’t indicate a fossil is young any more than a live dog buried today in 65 million year old rocks implies the dog died 65 million years ago. There are numerous anomalies in the Phanerozoic. Even supposing the Earth is old, it does not mean the fossils are young, and even supposing the fossils are old, there are evidently efforts to suppress and dismiss anomalous data. At the very least, due process is being violated, and it is never good to sweep anomalous data points without a good explanation. It will serve the ID community well if doubt on the age of the fossils can be cast.
Because I’m concerned with pollution and the need for renewable energy, I thought about nuclear energy and wouldn’t it be cool if we can change nuclear structure through electrical and chemical means. But if that can be done, does this not suggest all forms of radioactive dating could be suspect if such processes happen? So I went and began the term paper.
First thing I found. Rhenium-187. If all the electrons are stripped, the radioactive decay rates skyrockets by a billion times. Not immediately relevant to radiometric dating, but it piqued my interest. From Physical Review Letters Observation of Bound State Beta Decay in Rhenium 187.
And then there was this paper on pyroelectric fusion as reported in Nature 2005:
Pyroelectric Fusion where we had fusion in a solid state device via electricity at -34 degrees Celcius!
Then I happened upon this astonishing and forgotten article in Nature 1985.
Neutron Generation in Lighting. The mechanism was considered mysterious at the time.
It stood to reason if lighting can create neutrons, other electrical means can create neutrons, or could we even do alchemy with electricity? Yes indeed! From a bibliography in one of Alan Widom’s papers: Energetic Electrons and Nuclear Transmutations in Exploding Wires, I looked at the original papers of these experiments in the library, amazing!
S. Stephanakis, et al., Phys. Rev. Let. 29, 568 (1972).
F. Young, et al., J. Appl. Phys. 48, 3642 (1977).
Y. Bakshaev et al., Plasma Phys. Rep. 27, 1039 (2001).
Y. Bakshaev et al., Plasma Phys. Rep. 32, 501 (2006).
A. Velikovich et al., Phys. Plasmas 14, 022701 (2007).
C. Coverdale et al., Phys. Plasmas 14, 022706 (2007).
G. Sarkisov, et al., Phys. Plasmas 12, 052702 (2005).
I didn’t include Widom’s paper as a proof of electrical transmutation, but rather the source papers in Widom’s bibliography, lest my professor object.
In fact there was a hotly contested dispute between Ernst Rutherford and Wendt and Irion over claimed results that there was nuclear transmutation of tungsten when subjected to electricity. Here are the papers:
[1] G.L. Wendt and C.E. Irion, Amer. Chem. Soc. 44,
(1922).
[2] E. Rutherford, Nature 109, 418 (1922).
Rutherford dismissed the transmutation, but now in the modern day, in light of the above experiments, Wendt and Irion seem to have been vindicated.
Curiously, the mainstream by and large has been ignoring the work of the Proton-21 lab in the Ukraine in electrical alchemy. This sparked my interest because University of Illinois Urbana Champagne (a school I was considering) was very positive on the work of the Proton 21 lab. They’ve been able to take electricity and make a radio active substance non-radioactive.
This told me, we’re not quite understanding everything about electricity and its relation to nuclear process. Some of the researchers at the Proton-21 lab suggest some of the problems of nucleosynthesis in cosmology can be solved if electricity is considered a mechanism of nuclear transmutation. I don’t know, but well, these are data points we need to consider.
Does this have bearing on ID? Possibly. If there are rare electrical and chemical mechanism of changing nuclear structure, then this has bearing on the age of fossils, maybe everything else. I love heretical ideas in science.
Anyway, here is some information on the work of the Proton-21 lab:
Full Range Nucleosynthesis in the laboratory
Summary
The results which were obtained experimentally at the “Proton-21” laboratory indicate that a physical process
previously unknown in science, namely the physical process of artificial initiation of the collapse of a part of
the target material, was realized for the first time. In every experiment, the collapse is completed by both the full nuclear regeneration of a portion of the initial substance with a mass of 0.5 to 1 mg and the formation of artificially derived chemical elements instead of the initial atoms of a target, including the long-lived and stable isotopes of superheavy chemical elements, which are not otherwise found on Earth or in nearby space.
One of the proofs of the artificial origin of elements produced in the laboratory setup in the range of atomic
masses of natural isotopes A £ 240 is a significant (sometimes by tens and hundreds of times) change in the natural
isotope ratio which dominates the entire substance of the solar system. One more confirmation of both the collective self-compression and the formation of a collapse is presented by the discovered effect of transmutation of any kind of radioactive nuclei into nonradioactive ones. In this case, similarly to nature, the products of laboratory nucleosynthesis contain practically no a-, b-, or g-active isotopes, which opens the possibility of using the discovered physical phenomenon for the reprocessing of radioactive and toxic wastes
NOTES
1. There have been contested reports of chemical biological effects on nuclear structure, but I decided not to include those in my term paper. I chose to stick to uncontested data in the mainstream with the exception of the Proton-21 laboratory since they Proton-21 researchers were welcome with open arms at Urbana-Champagne.
But if electrical mechanism can affect nuclear structure, why not chemical? And since biological organisms are chemical, can’t they affect nuclear structure? After all we have proof of pyroelectric fusion happening at -34 degrees Celcius.
Research was presented on this topic at the American Chemical Society and other places. Here is probably the foremost researcher on the topic of biological organism changing radioisotopes:
Dr. Vladimir I. Vysotskii is Professor of Radiophysical Faculty and Head of Theoretical Radiophysics Department at Kiev National Shevchenko University, Ukraine. He received his Master degree in Quantum Radiophysics from the same University in 1969 and Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from Kiev Institute of Theoretical physics of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in 1975.
Since 1976 Dr. Vysotskii has been working in the Radiophysical Faculty of Kiev National Shevchenko University. Currently he is Professor and Head of Theoretical Radiophysics Department of this University where he conducts courses on quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, modern laser physics, molecular biology and radiobiology.
Prof.Vysotskii’s research interests include
* X-ray lasers and gamma-ray lasers, sources of short-wave radiation of fast electrons and positrons in crystals, the methods of creation, forming and controlling of directed flow of neutrons, X-rays and gamma-quanta for the aims of coherent atomic and nuclear physics,
* New methods of coherent physics, nuclear physics and nuclear optics of condensed matter, X-ray and gamma-ray optics, channeling of atoms, neutrons, X-rays and gamma-quanta in (or near) perfect crystals;
* Nuclear physics at extreme conditions (self-controlled collapse of electron-nuclear plasma in both a laboratory and in the universe)
* Modern problems of radiobiology:In the area of applied biology he has conducted research on radiation and molecular biophysics and environmental problems such as :
* Investigation and modelling of nonlinear phenomena in DNA (depolymerization, degradation, repairing) at combined action of hard and soft radiation and action of free radicals in real intermolecular and intercellular mediums.
* The problems of hormesis, radiation synergism and antagonism at combined irradiation of living systems and the problem of low dose.
* Investigation of physical properties, memory phenomena and biological effects of regular and activated water.
* Investigation of biophysical properties and both biological and medical application of activated water.
* Investigation of isotopes anomalies in living systems and study of possible nuclear reactions in biological and microbiological systems.
* Radiation ecology and the problem of utilization (deactivation) of radioactive waste.Prof. Vysotskii is the first author of the following six books:
• Vysotskii V.I., Kuzmin R.N. Gamma-lasers, Moscow, Moscow State Univ Publishing House, 1989
• Vysotskii V.I.,Kornilova A.A. Nuclear Fusion and transmutation of isotopes in biological systems, Moscow, MIR Publishing House, 2003
• Vysotskii V.I., Smirnov I.V., Kornilova A.A.Introduction to the Biophysics of Activated Water, Universal Publishiers, Roca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005
• Vysotskii V.I. Quantum Mechanics and its Application in Applied Physics, 2009, Handbook, Kiev.
• Vysotskii V.I., Kornilova A.A. Nuclear transmutation of stable and radioactive isotopes in biological systems, Pentagon Press, India, 2009.
• Vysotskii V.I., Kornilova A.A., Smirnov I.V. Applied biophysics of activated water (the physical properties, biological effects and medical applications of MRET activated water), World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, 2009.Prof. V.I.Vysotskii was awarded the US Air Force Window for Science and has been recipient of various research grants from INTAS, CRDF, IAEA and other agencies.
The main topics of his investigation in “biology” area are:
Investigation and modelling of nonlinear phenomena in DNA; problems of hormesis, radiation synergism and antagonism at combined irradiation of living systems and the problem of low dose; investigation of physical properties, memory phenomena and biological effects of regular and activated water; investigation of isotopes anomalies in living systems and study of possible nuclear reactions in biological and microbiological systems; radiation ecology and the problem of utilization (deactivation) of radioactive waste.
2. These are speculative, heretical topics, but in service of the ID community, these topics have to be visited on occasion if they have indirect bearing on ID which they do.
3. Walter Brown speculates electrically driven nuclear processes have bearing on the radiometric dates of rocks. He points out the absence of radioactivity at the ocean floor and boldly predicts we’ll find an absence of radioactivity beyond ten miles under the Earth surface. We’ll see! Vodka!
4. Here is a friendly wiki article on Bubble Fusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
Bubble fusion, also known as sonofusion, is the non-technical name for a nuclear fusion reaction hypothesized to occur inside extraordinarily large collapsing gas bubbles created in a liquid during acoustic cavitation.[1] Rusi Taleyarkhan and collaborators claimed to have observed evidence of sonofusion in 2002. The claim was quickly surrounded by controversy, including allegations ranging from experimental error to academic fraud. Subsequent publications claiming independent verification of sonofusion were also highly controversial. Eventually, an investigation by Purdue University found that Taleyarkhan had engaged in falsification of independent verification, and had included a student as an author on a paper when he hadn’t participated in the research. He was subsequently stripped of his professorship. One of his funders, the Office of Naval Research reviewed the report by Purdue, and deemed that the behavior was “so severe as to merit debarment”, and barred him from federal funding for 28 months.[2] None of the investigations examined the research itself.
Dr. Edward R. Forringer and undergraduates David Robbins and Jonathan Martin of LeTourneau University presented two papers at the American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting that reported replication of neutron emission. Their experimental setup was similar to previous experiments in that it used a mixture of deuterated acetone, deuterated benzene, tetrachloroethylene and uranyl nitrate. Notably, however, it operated without an external neutron source and used two types of neutron detectors. They claimed a liquid scintillation detector measured neutron levels at 8 standard deviations above the background level, while plastic detectors measured levels at 3.8 standard deviations above the background. When the same experiment was performed with non-deuterated control liquid, the measurements were within one standard deviation of background, indicating that the neutron production had only occurred during cavitation of the deuterated liquid.[20][21][22][23] William M. Bugg, emeritus physics professor at the University of Tennessee also traveled to Taleyarkhan’s lab to repeat the experiment with his equipment. He also reported neutron emission, using plastic neutron detectors.[23] Taleyarkhan claimed these visits counted as independent replications by experts, but Forringer later recognized that he was not an expert, and Bugg later said that Taleyarkhan performed the experiments and he had only watched.[24]
5. Alan Widom suggests the nuclear reaction are not fusion but inverse beta decay. I don’t know, but we need to keep the experiments happening. This is really cool.
6. Example of mechanical means affecting nuclear structure? Atomic bombs and reactors. Move enough of the right kind of Uranium in sufficient concentration into a localized area, and you get critical mass and a nuclear reaction.