The Brobdingnagian difficulties of communicating frontier science captured in two links:

(1) Hannah Devlin's Guardian article on Jonathan Oppenheim's proposal to resolve the incompatibility between quantum mechanics & general relativity:
theguardian.com/science/2023/d

(2) The 158-equation Nature paper by Oppenheim & collaborators on the theory & possible tests: nature.com/articles/s41467-023

Kudos to Hannah for even attempting to take this on & no, I don't understand Jonathan's work either 😬✌️

Follow

@markmccaughrean Your post puts me in mind of late 2022 when news reports were making it sound like someone had created a wormhole in a lab, when, in fact, they had executed a quantum computation that approximated a field theory process that is conjectured to be mathematically dual to a wormhole (in a different dimension and geometry of spacetime than we have).

In that case I was grateful for the article by @JenLucPiquant clarifying the matter:

universeodon.com/@JenLucPiquan

@internic @JenLucPiquant Yes, I remember that daft story doing the rounds.

Of course in some cases, the scientists or their institutional PR teams get a little creative with their story-telling in order to excite the media (the 1 sigma “detection” of possibly biochemical dimethyl sulphide in an exoplanet atmosphere comes to mind), which of course adds a whole other entanglement to the interface.

@markmccaughrean "entanglement" eh? Surely no pun intended. ;-)

Yes, I was very excited when I saw that story on the dimethyl sulphide until I got to the part where it was only a 1-sigma detection, at which point it seemed rather premature for the popular press to be getting excited. It's still interesting work, but it's clearly a "more research is needed" situation, especially considering IIRC there was a previous putative H2O detection for the same planet that "evaporated" when further data was taken.

@internic Yeah, 1 sigma is noise – no kind of detection whatsoever. It should never have been mentioned by the scientists involved. I wouldn’t say it was premature: it was irresponsible.

@markmccaughrean Right, I'm not aware of any scientific context in which 1 sigma is considered significant.

I never saw whether there was a journal publication about it. I would hope no journal would deem a 1-sigma signal worthy of publication.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.