Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

earth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 246 posts

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#121

Post by matt-attack »

> We therefore have a very good statistical basis for claiming that we have discovered a truly existing phenomenon. The only question is, *is it really the one we were expecting*? [My Emphasis]

Why on earth is that the "only question"? What does that even mean?

I can think of many many questions and that isn't one of them:

   * What is the mechanism that associates the radiation to the earth movement
   * Are other objects on earth also affected?
   * How can we use this to predict quakes?

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#122

Post by [deleted] »

jjk166 wrote: post #50
ozgung wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“There may or may not be an earthquake somewhere in the world, including oceans, in 15 days” is not a very useful warning though, if not harmful.

If the increase in cosmic ray detections is due to some change in Earth's magnetic field, presumably where and how the magnetic field changes would in some way correlate with the activity.

[deleted]

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#123

Post by opello »

jl6 wrote: post #115
idlewords wrote: post #6

The key claim in the paper ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf ) is that there are detectable changes in cosmic ray activity around 15 days before major seismic events. One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. But they don't rule out loopier ideas (like sunspot activity driving changes in the Earth's dynamo that the…

> One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. If this was real, would it not be easier to measure the perturbation of the magnetic field than measure the cosmic rays being let in by the perturbed magnetic field?

This was my thought as well since it seems rather obvious I wonder why it wasn't the approach taken.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#124

Post by mjburgess »

mjhay wrote: post #57

I think it's telling that none of the authors are geophysicists, and they definitely aren't statisticians either. The causality they're claiming just does not have any physical plausibility. > Dr. Homola states, “In the scientific world, it is accepted that a discovery can be said to have been made when the statistical confidence level of the corroborating data reaches five sigma, or standard deviations.” > Homola co…

No statistical analysis at all applies if the relevant premises are false. People defend the statistical analysis using statistical metrics, rather than the premesis by which the stats are used (eg., the model type, the causal model, etc.).

Eg., if there is no causal connection between X, Y then any analysis of association between X, Y is not a causal one.

Entire fields of people have been taught that stats can justify science -- and hence the heaps of pseudoscience.

It is science which justifies the use of stats; not vice versa.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#125

Post by elcritch »

ordu wrote: post #66
DangerousPie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine if they account for the number of tests they have made when they calculate their significance levels. If they just kept on trying different options until they ended up with p < 0.05 it's almost guaranteed to be noise.

They used p<0.001. It is not social sciences, there anti-noise filters are stricter.

Ah that's not too bad. Though to be fair you also need the data size. That's only what one in a 1k chance (or is it 10k? Too lazy to count it out). If their dataset is small or they automated testing cofactors there's still a decent chance of false probability.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#126

Post by deepserket »

phkahler wrote: post #97

Could nuclear reactions inside the earth emit radiation that is picked up by these detectors? I think probably not. But if so, imagine molten nuclear fuel coming together and creating extra energy that soon after produces earthquakes.

What

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#127

Post by sbierwagen »

01100011 wrote: post #60
idlewords wrote: post #6

The key claim in the paper ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf ) is that there are detectable changes in cosmic ray activity around 15 days before major seismic events. One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. But they don't rule out loopier ideas (like sunspot activity driving changes in the Earth's dynamo that the…

Or there's a common trigger event, like, say, a large gravitational wave or a passing cloud of weakly interacting matter(dark matter?) which triggers both increased cosmic ray emissions along with earthquakes. Not that I believe any of this, but it seems we're just pulling stuff out of our asses so I figured I'd give it a shot.

>gravity wave

LIGO, the gravity wave detecting interferometer, has arms 4 kilometers long. Along that distance, it can detect a change in length one ten thousandth the diameter of a proton. With an instrument that sensitive, it can just barely detect a handful of gravity waves a year, out of the thousands? that occur in the observable universe. Gravity waves are subtle things.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#128

Post by refibrillator »

mjhay wrote: post #57

I think it's telling that none of the authors are geophysicists, and they definitely aren't statisticians either. The causality they're claiming just does not have any physical plausibility. > Dr. Homola states, “In the scientific world, it is accepted that a discovery can be said to have been made when the statistical confidence level of the corroborating data reaches five sigma, or standard deviations.” > Homola co…

I agree with you regarding p-values. But why are you appealing to credentials and dismissing the idea with your own boldly unsupported claim?

> The causality they're claiming just does not have any physical plausibility.

Survey the literature and you’ll find plenty of evidence that there is some credence to the idea.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#129

Post by jjtheblunt »

lanstin wrote: post #45
heyjamesknight wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually interpret it as "scales geometrically and not arithmetically".

That seems confusing. If I say my new service is orders of magnitude more efficient than previous services, I don’t mean any thing about scaling but current performance, and I wouldn’t say orders of magnitude if it was just twice as many calls/second/core, but more than ten, or really more than 30, halfway between ten and a hundred, logarithmically. Something that scales geometrically might well have some giant const…

i think of "orders of magnitude" to mean "powers of ten", but I asked since i'm not sure i'm reading what folks think they are saying.

Re: Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes

#130

Post by kanzenryu2 »

01100011 wrote: post #60
idlewords wrote: post #6

The key claim in the paper ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf ) is that there are detectable changes in cosmic ray activity around 15 days before major seismic events. One posited mechanism is that stuff happens deep in the earth that affects the magnetic field first, and then kicks off some big earthquake. But they don't rule out loopier ideas (like sunspot activity driving changes in the Earth's dynamo that the…

Or there's a common trigger event, like, say, a large gravitational wave or a passing cloud of weakly interacting matter(dark matter?) which triggers both increased cosmic ray emissions along with earthquakes. Not that I believe any of this, but it seems we're just pulling stuff out of our asses so I figured I'd give it a shot.

One aspect of gravity waves is that other than being extremely weak, they cannot perform work. So they don't cause mechanical forces.
Post reply on HN