Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Advance Warning System For Solar Flares Hinges On Surprising Hypothesis

Posted by Soulskill on from the correlates-with-bofh-laziness dept.

cylonlover writes "Scientists may have hit upon a new means of predicting solar flares more than a day in advance, which hinges on a hypothesis dating back to 2006 that solar activity affects the rate of decay of radioactive materials on Earth. Study of the phenomenon could lead to a new system which monitors changes in gamma radiation emitted from radioactive materials, and if the underlying hypothesis proves correct (abstract), this could lead to solar flare advance warning systems that would assist in the protection of satellites, power systems and astronauts."

7 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Variable rate of decay? by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It depends. These phenomenon might be peculiar to the isotope in question (chlorine 36), could be insignificant entirely, or could average out over a long period of time to the established rate in any case. Decay rates are not entirely constant in every particle, either: ionization can affect the decay rate significantly. I think we'll have to wait until further research to really know for sure the complete implications of this discovery, or indeed if it is even true.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  2. Re:This is like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, let's see. Both radioactive decay and neutrinos interact through the weak nuclear force, so to suggest that the scientific plausibility is "insane" is, well...

  3. Re:It's about time by arse+maker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Non replicable data also not really science.

    There is no lack of people who would look into this, and to be sure many top people have. There have been many people coming forward since to show data that doesn't exhibit this pattern. Thats a huge problem.

    The burden of proof is on the claimant and its far from proven.

  4. I call politics by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has to be either a systematic or a fluke. The only thing that could conceivably have an influence on nuclear decay rates is...

    Okay, wait.

    This guy has evidence which your model doesn't account for. You're saying that the evidence can't be right because it isn't accounted for by your model?

    That's not science, that's politics.

    If he's got evidence, either counter with your own evidence or show that his evidence is fabricated.

    Try actually being a scientist, instead of pretending to act like one.

    1. Re:I call politics by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, wait.

      This guy has evidence which your model doesn't account for. You're saying that the evidence can't be right because it isn't accounted for by your model?

      That's not science, that's politics.

      If he's got evidence, either counter with your own evidence or show that his evidence is fabricated.

      Try actually being a scientist, instead of pretending to act like one.

      I'm saying I am very skeptical of the "evidence" because it makes no fucking sense at all. Anybody can find statistically significant, completely spurious correlations when given a large-enough mass of data. Would you also suggest that I take these guys seriously?

      I never said that the Purdue people shouldn't publish their result. Their paper simply notes a correlation. They don't claim to know why there is a correlation, and there could be many explanations. That's science. The most likely explanation is that the effect is a systematic. I say this because I know many other well-verified facts about how the world works, and this purported correlation is in conflict with all of these things. That's also science. Uncritically accepting one piece of data and therefore throwing out a century of scientific knowledge is not being a scientist. It's being a nutjob.

  5. Re:This is like by Velex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy cow. Only on Slashdot can some internet tough guy say "I don't care what people who are actually studying this think. I know better because I can throw words like 'neutrino' and 'plausibility' around." And then get modded up to +5 insightful.

    I'm not even going to waste a mod point making this a +4 instead. What's the point? Good grief.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  6. Re:This is like by kav2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If everyone has that mindset to avoid testing "batshit crazy" theories, we will not produce new ones. Physics is not an area where truth is final..

    You want repeatable experiments. Those guys want to try them - and you're calling that insane. Maybe that will lead to discovery of yet another, different explanation and mechanism that was attributable to neutrinos only on first estimation.

    A good definition of "scientific" is "refutable". This one certainly qualifies. So let them try and not drown them in skepticism right away.