19 ms·
Surges of cosmic radiation from space directly linked to earthquakes
- MeteorMarc 3y agoNot a single diagram to show the correlation in the earth.com description.
- webdoodle 3y agoPaper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2023.106068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2023.106068
- aurelianito 3y agoBehind paywall :'(
- burkaman 3y agohttps://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2204/2204.12310.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2204/2204.12310.pdf https://unpaywall.org/ https://unpaywall.org/
- amelius 3y ago> He emphasizes that the Earth’s magnetic field, a result of eddy currents in our planet’s liquid core, alters the trajectory of primary cosmic radiation’s charged particles. > Therefore, any substantial earthquakes linked to disturbances in the Earth’s dynamo flows would alter the magnetic field, thus impacting the path of primary cosmic radiation. The fallout of these alterations would be apparent in the changes in the counts of secondary cosmic ray particles recorded by ground-based detectors. Wouldn't there be a more direct way of measuring changes in the magnetic field generated in Earth's core? Or is this method preferable because it's cheap and sufficiently accurate?
- AnotherGoodName 3y agoWell a confounding variable would be that we already know tectonic movements change the magnetic field. In fact that's the thing that triggers alarms for me here. Haven't they just found that we detect more cosmic rays when there's tectonic movement? Cosmic rays are influenced by the magnetic field and the magnetic field is influenced by tectonic movement. Why are they pushing the line that cosmic rays cause earthquakes when there's a reasonable and testable alternative - we detect more cosmic rays when there's tectonic movement.
- dmead 3y agoThat was my thought as well. I'd bet money that these people are wackjobs and need to be seen as insightful.
- pfdietz 3y ago> Wouldn't there be a more direct way Of course. That's one reason among many of thinking this is all bullshit.
- idlewords 3y agoThe key claim in the paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.12310.pdf 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 then kick off earthquakes). One thing that troubles me in the paper is that the researchers appear to have gone looking for precursor patterns in an ad hoc way, with no physical theory in mind, just trying different binning techniques and delays until they got a signal. I'd love to hear the opinion of someone who knows this field on the soundness of this research.
- hammock 3y agoif the mechanism is true, could this information be used by humans to control earthquakes? There have always been a lot of theories around projects like HAARP that have the capability to send a lot of energy deep into the earth.
- athenot 3y agoMaybe not control but the ability to have an advance warning would be a huge gain in terms of public safety.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 29athrowaway 3y agoUnrolling tape produces x-rays. Is the radiation causing earthquakes or it is caused by earthquakes (due to some unknown phenomenon?)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aaomidi 3y agoWell there’s a 15 day delay between them so, I think it’s be harder to have the opposite :D
- lanstin 3y agoThe article mentions that a thing could change the core magnetic stuff, which deflects cosmic rays, and triggers other changes that in two weeks percolate up to an earthquake. This is a statistical finding, needs a theory to explain. I mean it could be some weird trajectories in a chaotic fluid flow of liquid iron in the core that causes both.
- kansface 3y agoI suppose some earthquakes could be kicked off by changes in fluid flow, but also, 2 weeks of data is enough degrees of freedom to find any relationship you'd like.
- bckr 3y agoOne of the main hypotheses is that the earth’s dynamo (molten, magnetically active core) is emitting/redirecting the radiation.
- phreeza 3y agoIn other news, the number of sociology graduates strongly correlates with the number of non-commercial space launches in a given year! https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations In all seriousness though, it is pretty easy to find such correlations and I would take them with a huge grain of salt. For example there was a long-running theory that sunspots had a causal relationship to influenza epidemics, which turns out to be probably purely spurious: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847318/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28847318/
- fractallyte 3y ago"Probably" It's in that sliver of doubt that the big scientific discoveries lie...
- 0xr0kk3r 3y agoThe article points out that the researchers have a premise grounded in science for their correlation. That's the difference between shouting "correlation doesn't equal causation" and actually understanding how correlation is applied.
- phreeza 3y agoI would say the crucial thing is actually making a falsifiable prediction, not having a scientific grounding. There are also many "just so" stories that make sense at face value but are not really falsifiable (e.g. Evo psych is full of them). I think the theory here does make some falsifiable predictions, which is great, so guess we will see. But I'm not holding my breath.
- 0xr0kk3r 3y agoGood point. I don't understand their claims, and I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm really interested to understand the mechanism in more detail if it turns out to be correct because it sounds so bizarre.
- csharpminor 3y agoIt's funny, I remember talking to an engineer from JPL(?) at a fundraiser in Palo Alto who was convinced of this link back in 2011. The conversation really stuck with me because in truth, I wasn't sure if this was a wishful conspiracy theory or cutting-edge science. If my recollection serves correctly they were unable to get arrive at a good enough level of specificity to actually feel comfortable predicting an earthquake. These cosmic ray events happened with enough regularity (and didn't result in earthquakes) that there was a legitimate concern about creating paranoia.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y agoRelated : Earthquakes here on earth DO emit light !! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_lights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_lights
- blincoln 3y agoAt least one of the videos linked from the references in that article is pretty dramatic, with frequent pulses of blue light from different locations near the ground.[1] If there is a link between cosmic radiation and earthquakes (and that's a very big "if"), could it be Cherenkov radiation caused by super-high-energy particles exceeding the speed of electromagnetic radiation in bedrock/soil/whatever (not C, obviously, but the lower speed that the radiation travels through that media)? Basically a colossal natural version of detecting neutrinos by their flashes of light in a tank of water? [1] https://twitter.com/webcamsdemexico/status/1572924731258462208 https://twitter.com/webcamsdemexico/status/15729247312584622...
- avaldez_ 3y agoI live in Chile, one of the most seismically active countries in the world, and been through several earthquakes. Those lights? Just transformers and power lines blowing up. In the 2010 earthquake [1] we had several >6 Mag. aftershocks for days and we didn't see more flashes after the first shaking, simply because there wasn't power anymore. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chile_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chile_earthquake
- blincoln 3y agoDid you see anything like the number of blue flashes from transformers that are in that video? That was what I assumed at first as well, but it seems like far too many, unless there's something different about the way electrical grids are wired up in Mexico and Chile.
- blincoln 3y agoOn further reflection, I'm adding this extra note indicating that I think my theory doesn't really work, even if it was a fun idea. Generating that much blue light via Cherenkov radiation seems like it would require such a flood of high-energy particles that it would have killed everyone in the area.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoSo who is going to be first to launch earthquake inducing satellite weapon?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TMWNN 3y agoThe US, in 1988 <https://www.americaspace.com/2012/01/30/into-the-black-nasas-secret-shuttle-missions-part-two/ https://www.americaspace.com/2012/01/30/into-the-black-nasas...>
- akira2501 3y agoI can't help but think of this horrible movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Siege_2:_Dark_Territory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Siege_2:_Dark_Territory
- ldarby 3y agoAlso the film Conspiracy Theory - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118883/plotsummary/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118883/plotsummary/ > Jerry tells her that NASA is trying to kill the President using a secret weapon on the Space Shuttle that can trigger earthquakes.
- java-man 3y agoDirect link to the paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/b8592914-c53a-4c84-a9b3-6d93e05a3627-MECA.pdf?abstractid=4261763&mirid=1 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/b8592914-c53a-4c84...
- mjhay 3y agoI 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 continues, “For the observed correlation, we obtained more than six sigma, which means a chance of less than one in a billion that the correlation is due to chance. 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?” This is not what p-values mean! P-values are not at all the chance of a result being erroneous. It's an unfortunately widespread misconception among people who should know better. https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/p-valuestatement.pdf https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/p-valuestatement.pdf
- mjburgess 3y agoNo 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.
- refibrillator 3y agoI 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.
- mjhay 3y agoGeomagnetism is easily measurable and has been monitored for a long time. The central claim is that changes in cosmic ray frequencies can predict earthquakes. The proposed causal mechanism is changes in the geodynamo affecting the propagation of cosmic rays. The effect on cosmic rays is secondary to the changes in geomagnetism. Despite decades of people looking for evidence, changes in geomagnetism are not associated with earthquakes[0]. If this paper's hypothesis is true, geomagnetic fluctuations should co-occur with fluctuations of cosmic ray counts - thus geomagnetic fluctuations should also predict earthquakes. But they don't. Claims of being able to predict earthquakes have had a long and not great history. Earthquake prediction is the faster-than-light travel of geophysics. Any claims that it is possible should be viewed with extreme scrutiny. [0] https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-earthquakes-associated-variations-geomagnetic-field https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-earthquakes-associated-variati...
- sneak 3y ago> The main idea here is the observation that eddy currents in the liquid core of our planet are responsible for generating the Earth's magnetic field. This field deflects the paths of charged particles of primary cosmic radiation. Thus, if large earthquakes were associated with disturbances in the flows of matter that drive the Earth's dynamo, these disturbances would alter the magnetic field, which in turn would affect the tracks of the particles of primary cosmic radiation in a manner that depends on the dynamics of the disturbances inside our planet. As a result, ground-based detectors should see some changes in the numbers of secondary cosmic ray particles detected.
- whatshisface 3y agoThere are orbiting and ground-based magnetic observatories whose data goes at least as far as the cosmic ray observatories. If their hypothesis is that the magnetic field is what connects cosmic ray observations to the origin of seismic activity, they could check those records.
- user6723 3y agoThe Disaster Prediction App will show you the current state of the sun, it’s effects on Earth’s space weather, earthquake events, and areas of the Earth likely to have large earthquakes in the coming days. There is a space weather portion of the App and an Earthquake portion of the App. https://9rese.com/disaster-prediction-app/ https://9rese.com/disaster-prediction-app/
- refibrillator 3y agoOur understanding of the relationship between sun and earth has barely begun to sprout. Popular discourse tends to be dominated by Newtonian ideas, as if earth was simply a rock in empty space orbiting a massive fireball called the sun. We landed on the surface of the moon by using such approximations. But they fail to explain many observations that modern technology has opened our eyes to. For example, the coronal heating problem [1]. Possibly one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Why does the temperature of the sun’s atmosphere increase as you get further away from the surface? We still don’t know exactly. But we have some hints. Voyager 1 revealed to us that the dynamics of the heliosphere are much more complex than we imagined [2]. And we have observed that the sun emits a powerful electromagnetic field, which is intimately connected to a variety of spectacular phenomena here on earth. Like the northern lights, aka auroras [3]. Or massive electrical discharges in thunderstorms which reach into the highest layers of Earth’s atmosphere [4]. So I implore you to consider, why wouldn’t earthquakes be explained by solar dynamics? If not completely, at least partially. It seems we may be on the cusp of realizing that our solar system - and perhaps our entire galaxy - is connected through electromagnetism. Entirely new fields like “space weather” and “plasma cosmology” are rising up from the depths of ideation and research. What a time to be alive. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-s-parker-solar-probe-and-the-curious-case-of-the-hot-corona https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-s-parker-sola... [2] https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager-092205-feature.html https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager-092... [3] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-themis-sees-auroras-move-to-the-rhythm-of-earth-s-magnetic-field https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-themis-sees... [4] https://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/spd/sprites.html https://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/spd/sprites.html
- jxramos 3y ago> Why does the temperature of the sun’s atmosphere increase as you get further away from the surface? We still don’t know exactly. Kind of reminds me of the inner tip of the blue cone in the Bunsen burner which is supposed to be the hottest point of combustion rather than at the bottom of the flame, and the top of the flame is supposedly the coolest?
- 3y ago
- acidioxide 3y agolink for polish version to those interested: https://press.ifj.edu.pl/news/2023/06/14/ https://press.ifj.edu.pl/news/2023/06/14/
- miika 3y agoThis was discussed quite a bit after 2004 asian tsunami, which was triggered by an earthquake near Antarctica and there was also some massive gamma ray burst (or something) occurring about the same time. I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s a connected universe. No thing is an island.
- ithkuil 3y agoWell, islands are islands, aren't they?
- aftbit 3y agoThat depends on the sea level, doesn't it? Even islands are connected to the rest of the world.
- booleandilemma 3y agoMaybe nothing can be an island in a metaphorical sense, but literal islands are possible?
- ithkuil 3y agoWell, by definition the island metaphor is about the isolation that islands provide. So surely metaphorical islands are likelier to preserve the property of being islands even if the physical ones turn out to be much more fuzzy. GP was clearly mixing metaphor and real to create an effect. "Nothing is really an island" -> "not even real islands are so isolated as it may seem".
- idlewords 3y agoSpoken like a true Scorpio
- EdwardDiego 3y agoTriggered by an earthquake near Antarctica? Citation really freaking needed there. I've got one that says there was no causative effect. https://web.archive.org/web/20141213144822/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2004/us2004slav/faq.php https://web.archive.org/web/20141213144822/http://earthquake...
- phkahler 3y agoCould 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.
- deepserket 3y agoWhat
- gus_massa 3y agoIt's more complicated, but oversimplifying each nuclear reaction produces gamma rays with a different energy, so you can use that energy to identify the source. (It's like the color of light.) Also, I think most of those detectors are directional.
- kkoncevicius 3y agoInteresting bit: I've been watching this one conspiratorial YouTube channel from time to time, and there it is claimed that the link between sun, radioactivity, and earthquakes, is old news. Here is a video exactly about this, from more than 7 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEyflcAlqZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEyflcAlqZc
- Aerbil313 3y agoGiven Earth is a highly complex system, can’t a transformer AI be used to predict earthquakes?
- matt-attack 3y ago> 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?
- shusaku 3y agoWhat is going on with the linked page, some kind of search engine optimization? The article just goes on and on with barely related facts…
- supernova87a 3y agoThere are many recorded reports of lightning, atmospheric visual effects (change in sky color, appearance of storm-like light conditions) that coincide with earthquakes. Which presumably / conceivably have to do with stresses in the rocks being displaced causing electric side effects. So it's not such a stretch of the imagination that this could affect the magnetic/electric fields around the Earth and change the trajectory of ions around the Earth as well.
- SergeAx 3y ago> Scientists have identified a striking correlation Mandatory link: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- elif 3y agoI wonder if this is how animals "feel" earthquakes before seismographs do...
- folugna37 3y agoLooks like the electric universe people have found their way onto this website. Some guy in this thread was even promoting a debunked disaster prediction app that was created by a lawyer who is not a scientist. Literally the first paragraph, “Scientists have identified a striking correlation between global seismic activity – earthquakes, to be precise – and changes in the intensity of cosmic radiation measured on Earth’s surface.” Cool, a correlation, not really “directly linked to.” Correlation is not causation.
- ball823 3y ago[dead]
- ball823 3y ago[dead]
- honey212 3y ago[dead]
- honey212 3y ago[dead]
- oldmen983 3y ago[dead]
- oldmen983 3y ago[dead]
- phoneworld23 3y ago[dead]
- phoneworld23 3y ago[dead]
- hexa872 3y ago[dead]
- hexa872 3y ago[dead]
- theme8972 3y ago[dead]
- theme8972 3y ago[dead]
- provide9218 3y ago[dead]
- provide9218 3y ago[dead]
- mnky9800n 3y agoThe author's don't seem to recognize that is only very recently that we likely are cataloging most to all magnitude 5 earthquakes. They don't seem to recognize that the completeness of the catalog will be different in different places, the magnitudes may not even be calculated in the same way. For example, the increase in seismicity in the first plot is due to better detections, did they detrend this before doing their analysis? They really don't seem to know anything about how earthquake catalogs are created. Then they create 5 day bins to correlate with the cosmic radiation. If an increase in cosmic radiation would cause an increase in seismicity "to not then 5 sigma" shouldn't it be most obvious in the cumulative count of radiation versus the cumulative count of earthquakes? Why would this only trigger larger magnitude events? Also, since cosmic rays are the cause and the observations of them are global, wouldn't you see a global increase in seismicity? In fact, wouldn't this change in seismicity be long noted by seismologists even without knowing anything about cosmic rays? They also seem to attribute mechanical stress of the crust to electromagnetic forces. Wouldn't you think someone would have noticed that their compass stopped working when an earthquake happens? Or aurora? With such high correlations you would think it would be easier to just shift the cosmic data by 15 days and show how well it all goes together.