Worst Physics Article In History

[Raze]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/

I can't believe this, particularly the title. What are your thoughts?

[BenBurch]

Yeah, you have that right. Fox "news."

:dl:

[paiute]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/

I can't believe this, particularly the title. What are your thoughts?

My thought is that S. A. Scoggin wrote a short play about it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19550880/GUT-The-Grand-Unified-Theory-A-oneact-play-with-seven-blackouts

[Complexity]

Interesting subject, stupid article, horrid network.

'freaky' and 'wonky'? How odd it must be to write for the nascar crowd.

[Buckaroo]

As soon as Fred Alan Wolf made an appearance, I was outa there.

[MattusMaximus]

A good example of media fail.

But, believe me, I've seen worse mangling of physics than that.

[schrodingasdawg]

Wow, I feel literally sick just reading this.

Or it could be something I ate ...

[Dancing David]

The first sentence says it all

Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible.

Nope. Epic fail.

[Monketey Ghost]

A screen shot from back to the Future makes it super sciencey.

I like the title of this thread, the article is stupid, and I felt evil clicking on that link. More hits equals more stupid.

[Tumblehome]

My first thought was that you can see the same effect with a plucked string, but it's an optical illusion. I assume there's more than that to this particular experiment, but apparently there's no room for details amid all the excited hyperbole.

And what is this paddle of which they speak? They must mean paddle-shaped or paddle-like piece of metal, but again, there's no explanation in the "article".

[BobTheDonkey]

A screen shot from back to the Future makes it super sciencey.

I like the title of this thread, the article is stupid, and I felt evil clicking on that link. More hits equals more stupid.

Or demonstrates the internet meme plus gawking by those too intelligent to believe this level of stupid is possible by a "news" network...

[daenku32]

I'm just excited that we are only 5 years away from flying cars, floating skate boards, automatic shoe laces, and holographic movies. And the fax machine is coming back!!

[Twiler]

They don't seem to spend much time talking about the actual experiement. Isn't it conceptually impossible for a physical object to move and stand still at the same time? What observation was made?

[jsfisher]

Here's what seems to be a more rational description of the experiment: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html

[The Man]

Not to worry, in some parallel universe journalists actually research the topic they are writing about. Too bad that universe apparently ain’t this one.

[Perpetual Student]

Since when would we expect journalists to know anything about science?

[jasonpatterson]

Also notable on the actual science involved - The two states involved weren't anything visible, just measurable in a macroscopic object. It's still a big deal, but not what the fox or science news (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/57385/title/Physicists_observe_quantum_properties_in_the_world _of_objects) articles imply. The tuning fork in question was vibrating 6 billion times per second.

[3point14]

Aside from the content, is that article written for children???

[thatguywhojuggles]

I'm just excited that we are only 5 years away from flying cars, floating skate boards, automatic shoe laces, and holographic movies. And the fax machine is coming back!!

Thanks for the laugh!~

[Davidlpf]

Aside from the content, is that article written for children???
Think lower science education, think Palin.

[DC]

fair and balanced.









:D

[Trent Wray]

They don't seem to spend much time talking about the actual experiement. Isn't it conceptually impossible for a physical object to move and stand still at the same time? What observation was made?
There was also a thread on this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170400) awhile back.

Some of us were curious as to the actual papers from the experiment, but I don't recall them being released yet IIRC. Both articles sucked.

[Towlie]

I spotted that article yesterday when it was featured on Google News. I didn't bother reading it when I saw where it came from because I knew what to expect. Instead, I quickly scanned it for a searchable term and settled on "Andrew Cleland". Then I used that to do a Google News search for a more readable article (http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&ncl=dFqsuAo4yJq-QtM7ddzIQQoZVP_DM) on the subject.

But one thing I'd still like to know is, what exactly did they see that's so strange and unique? Is it something they could show to the average Joe and prompt him to raise an eyebrow?

[Tumblehome]

Aside from the content, is that article written for children???

It appears to have been written by children.

[Skeptic]

Seems like the usual misunderstanding of science by the media.

Scientists: "We have done X and proven Y. Tentatively, this is related to the greater issue whose ultimate goal might, at some point in the future, theoretically mean Z, which might be interesting for theoretical physicists."

Headline: CRAZY SCIENTISTS PROVE Z IN LABORATORY!!! WORLD DOOMED!!!

As usual, we get, or soon will get:

Step 1: highly inaccurate headline of misunderstood scientific article published by irresponsible journalist (already done).

Step 2: anguished reactions of the "we didn't actually say that" sort from the scientists in question.

Step 3: retraction of a claim that was actually never made by anybody except the idiot reporters gets press by same idiot reporters, making the scientists look bad, with typical will-you-eggheads-make-up-your-mind-already sneering.

(Like the recent reporting on the "withdrawal" of a claim about the "discovery" of a human ancestor -- a claim which was never actually made, except perhaps tentatively.)

Step 4: "See? SEE?! SCIENCE DOESN'T KNOW EVERYTHING!!!" glee from the anti-science crowd which never reads anything about science except for the media reports.

[Dancing David]

My first thought was that you can see the same effect with a plucked string, but it's an optical illusion. I assume there's more than that to this particular experiment, but apparently there's no room for details amid all the excited hyperbole.

And what is this paddle of which they speak? They must mean paddle-shaped or paddle-like piece of metal, but again, there's no explanation in the "article".

It is a very small piece of metal placed in a state of quantum 'superposition'.

[Tumblehome]

Thanks. I since saw a picture of it in the Nature.com link where it's also called a paddle. Is that the official term for it? It made me think of a tiny canoe paddle, and in my mind, I saw little quantum voyageurs both paddling and not paddling at the same time.:)

[readme.txt]

Poor readers who think those journalists are telling the truth.

[jasonpatterson]

But one thing I'd still like to know is, what exactly did they see that's so strange and unique? Is it something they could show to the average Joe and prompt him to raise an eyebrow?

They didn't actually see anything. They were able to measure a tiny metal bar wiggling 6 billion times a second at the same time they were able to measure it not wiggling at all. I suppose if they average Joe in question were interested in the topic and trusted the equipment doing the frequency measurements, he or she might raise an eyebrow, but other than that, I dunno...

[Cuddles]

The two states involved weren't anything visible, just measurable in a macroscopic object. It's still a big deal

To be fair, it's not even that big a deal. Where I work we have large tanks full of superfluid, and superconductors weighing at least a couple of tons each. It's always interesting to find new ways of displaying quantum phenomena at a macroscopic scale, but this is far from the first time it's been done.

[Accidental Martyr]

Faux News.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Um, how can one measure something moving, whilst also measuring it not moving at the same time?:confused: