Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Bill S on 21/06/2018 19:02:46
-
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05432-2?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180621&utm_sou=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180621&spMailingID=56851658&spUserID=MjgzNDMxNjU2ODES1&spJobID=1422975329&spReportId=MTQyMjk3NTMyOQS2
As usual, I’ve not had time to read this yet; nor have I looked for a suitable thread to add it to, but I thought it might be worth looking at.
-
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05432-2?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180621&utm_sou=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180621&spMailingID=56851658&spUserID=MjgzNDMxNjU2ODES1&spJobID=1422975329&spReportId=MTQyMjk3NTMyOQS2
As usual, I’ve not had time to read this yet; nor have I looked for a suitable thread to add it to, but I thought it might be worth looking at.
Having read the link there is no confirmed discovery or conclusion, just conjecture. It appears to be pop science.
-
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05432-2?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20180621&utm_sou=nature_etoc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20180621&spMailingID=56851658&spUserID=MjgzNDMxNjU2ODES1&spJobID=1422975329&spReportId=MTQyMjk3NTMyOQS2
As usual, I’ve not had time to read this yet; nor have I looked for a suitable thread to add it to, but I thought it might be worth looking at.
Having read the link there is no confirmed discovery or conclusion, just conjecture. It appears to be pop science.
The journal Nature is not a pop science journal and doesn't contain pop science. Pop science is, by definition, science toned down so that the public can understand it. It must not be confused with other ways the qualifier "pop" is used such as pop psychology, which is another name for pseudoscience psychology.
Not all articles in journals are intended to confirm anything. It hardly fits the term "conjecture" either. And the article was never intended to be taken as a published paper either. As it says at the top of the paper its a news article.
-
Having read the link there is no confirmed discovery or conclusion, just conjecture. It appears to be pop science.
So what? Even if so it doesn't mean its not important science. Note that the inflationary model of the universe has never been confirmed. There's a lot of evidence suggesting its true. Science doesn't "confirm" anything anyway. The term confirm is defined as establish the truth or correctness, i.e. to prove if and proof has no place in science when it comes to basic theories. Yet the creators of the inflation theory won the Kavli prize in physics which carries a cash prize of a million dollars per person. One of the winners is Alan Guth. Here is what he has to say about proof in science
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/Alan_Guth_04.mp4
-
its a news article.
Maybe it was a slow news day :)
Science doesn't "confirm" anything anyway. The term confirm is defined as establish the truth or correctness, i.e. to prove if and proof has no place in science when it comes to basic theories.
I think everyone wants a better understanding of the world we live in. At first it appears to be just smoke and mirrors and maybe if your mate is right it always will be :) a little mystery keeps people interested.
-
Dead cat, when you have the means (lots of funding) and the mechanics (well designed experiments), to falsify the work of others, then I'll take you seriously. Until then stop spouting uninformed nonsense. By the way, this is not me wearing a moderators hat.
-
What caught my eye is this "Nicastro et al.6 report the detection of the X-ray absorption signatures of baryons in the spectra of a bright background object. "
Now the important finding here is that it is an absorption spectrum and not an emission spectrum. They have not found missing matter but probably the signature of anti-matter