Is the Schnoll effect worth attention?

[nomadreid]

I am not sure whether the rubric "Beyond the Standard Model" includes such things. If not, I hope a moderator will move it to the proper rubric.
I came across the Schnoll Effect (by Simon Schnoll, Russian biophysicist) the other day: that variation in experimental measurements vary even more than the usual explanations ("the usual suspects": statistical variations, laboratory peculiarities, quantum fluctuations, Earth's magnetic field fluctuations, cosmic ray background, etc.) allow for, and furthermore, that there is a cyclic pattern to these variations (among others, an annual one). (This "Schnoll effect" then is pounced on by astrologers to give the hypothesis that there is some other cosmic influence not yet accounted for, but that is another question.) At first I thought this might be one more bad use of statistics, but I not only noticed that Prof. Schnoll is a highly respected scientist (which in itself does not exclude mistakes: see Linus Pauling and Roger Penrose), but that his results were replicated by others (including a lab in Germany, so it isn't a Russian phenomenon :-).) The whole thing still seems suspicious to me, but perhaps I am just prejudiced by the astrology link. Could someone tell me how the Schnoll Effect is presently regarded by mainstream physicists? Thank you.

 

[AndyW]

Thank you for bringing up the topic of the Schnoll Effect. it is always important to critically evaluate new ideas and findings, so your skepticism is understandable. However, it is also important to approach new ideas with an open mind and to look at the evidence objectively.

To answer your question, the Schnoll Effect is not currently included in the rubric of Beyond the Standard Model in physics. This rubric generally refers to theories or models that attempt to explain phenomena that are not accounted for by the current Standard Model of particle physics. The Schnoll Effect, on the other hand, is a phenomenon observed in biological systems, specifically variations in experimental measurements.

That being said, the Schnoll Effect is a legitimate scientific concept that has been studied and replicated by multiple researchers. While it may be tempting to dismiss it due to its association with astrology, it is important to evaluate the evidence and data objectively. It is possible that there is a yet-to-be-discovered physical explanation for the cyclic patterns observed in the Schnoll Effect, and further research and experimentation may shed light on this.

In terms of how the Schnoll Effect is currently regarded by mainstream physicists, it is not a widely studied or accepted concept in the physics community. This is likely due to its focus on biological systems, which is not the primary area of expertise for most physicists. However, as with any scientific concept, it is always subject to further investigation and evaluation.

In conclusion, while the Schnoll Effect may not fall under the rubric of Beyond the Standard Model in physics, it is a legitimate scientific concept that should be evaluated based on evidence and data rather than its associations with other fields. I encourage you to continue exploring this topic and to keep an open mind in your scientific pursuits.