Advance Warning System For Solar Flares Hinges On Surprising Hypothesis 199
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."
Re:Variable rate of decay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is like (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...
Re:It's about time (Score:4, 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.
I call politics (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.
Re:This is like (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.
Re:This is like (Score:4, 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.
Re:I call politics (Score:4, 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 [princeton.edu] 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.