Earth's supposed "Star Trek-like shield"

[monstah]

And I'm not making this up, either, that is the actual term used on the headline the University of Colorado Boulder is using on it's find:

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/11/26/star-trek-invisible-shield-found-thousands-miles-above-earth

It has been released today on Nature (which, as far as I can say, is a reliable source). However (and, personally, I find it a big however) I found out about it today through the usual newspaper media, and none of my scientific blogs makes any mention to it.

Your opinion: serious research, or publicitary stunt? I'm still undecided.

[Streetwind]

Serious research, put into layman's terms by the press. Those conversions are always somewhat stretching.

They've uncovered additional details about the Van Allen belts... in other words, they've gained a better understanding of how Earth's magnetic field is composed and how it interacts with the solar wind. Nothing quite as dramatic as a forcefield capable of deflecting phaser fire. That's just an analogy for people who have no idea how magnets work

[rtxoff]

This article uses terms like: “killer electronsâ€Â, "ultrafast electrons", "Star Trek like shields"

Not a very good indication for a serious science report even if it might be based on actual science this article does nothing more then saying there are free electrons roaming around at high speeds at altitudes 7,200 miles above earth and that they are somehow magically deflected. Scientists can not explain the phenomenon.

I expect more from a science report.

[shynung]

Well, it's a 'science report' for the uninformed public. Surely they'd have to replace some technical jargon with something easier to understand?

That said, I'd wait for a more comprehensive follow-up study before closing the case.

[Aethon]

NASA presents it pretty well to an uninformed public.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space/index.html#.VHdfWzHF-Yd

[vger]

I wouldn't say it's inaccurate to refer to the Van-Allen Belt as a 'shield.'

But Star-Trek like? Really?

[monstah]

NASA presents it pretty well to an uninformed public.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space/index.html#.VHdfWzHF-Yd

Much better source, thanks!

I started reading the original post, but the layman language threw me off ('Killer electrons' and such). I understand the importance of putting knowledge in terms most people will understand, but the lack of any other paper, properly technical, as well as publicity on sites and blogs I know that are dedicated to science disturbs me a little.

[zekes]

dude, this is cool.

[SciMan]

Just throwing this out there, but I think all of these "Science reports for the Average Joe" type news articles are going about the problem completely back-to-front.

Want to "put knowledge in terms most people will understand"?

USE A PICTURE. Animated, if needed. The ones from NASA a few posts above this are a great example of the RIGHT way to do it, IMO.

Because "Star Trek-like shields" isn't just wrong, it's misleading in the worst way. Someone might see the actual report this news article is based off of, and think the news article is more correct, simply because they don't understand the information presented to them in the actual report. "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong".

Bottom line: More fancy graphics, less references to "soft" sci-fi (soft sci-fi is light on the "sci", heavy on the "fi").

[monstah]

Just throwing this out there, but I think all of these "Science reports for the Average Joe" type news articles are going about the problem completely back-to-front.

Want to "put knowledge in terms most people will understand"?

USE A PICTURE. Animated, if needed. The ones from NASA a few posts above this are a great example of the RIGHT way to do it, IMO.

Because "Star Trek-like shields" isn't just wrong, it's misleading in the worst way. Someone might see the actual report this news article is based off of, and think the news article is more correct, simply because they don't understand the information presented to them in the actual report. "I don't understand it, so it must be wrong".

Bottom line: More fancy graphics, less references to "soft" sci-fi (soft sci-fi is light on the "sci", heavy on the "fi").

Most excellent, dude. Couldn't have said better.

http://www.universetoday.com/116742/nasas-van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-radiation-barrier-in-space/

Same news, better terminology (and pictures!).