Exact Solution to Model Big Bang, Quark Gluon Plasma Published

[shunyadragon]

[TheLurch]

Just as a general note, Science Daily is a repository for press releases. And, just as in other fields, the press releases are meant to make things look good - the researchers doing the study and the university where it's hosted. They pretty much never contain caveats, quotes from researchers who don't agree with the conclusions, etc. So, while they can point to interesting research, it's important to read further than just the press release to figure out how significant and trusted the work is.

The other site like that i see a lot of things from is PhysOrg. Treat both with caution.

In general, i think the problem with sites like this is that they contribute to the public's sense that "oh, scientists say one thing this week, another the next." Since the public doesn't understand the tentativeness of most preliminary research and the importance of building a consensus before feeling work is reliable, these sorts of things give them the sense that the whole endeavor is two steps away from chaos. Which is very unfortunate.

Ok, rant over - sorry i used your post as an example.

[shunyadragon]

Just as a general note, Science Daily is a repository for press releases. And, just as in other fields, the press releases are meant to make things look good - the researchers doing the study and the university where it's hosted. They pretty much never contain caveats, quotes from researchers who don't agree with the conclusions, etc. So, while they can point to interesting research, it's important to read further than just the press release to figure out how significant and trusted the work is.

Correct. I use these posts as beginning points of discussion. That is the purpose of all to read further and post. I have done this in previous threads I starter, and I may in this one also.

The other site like that i see a lot of things from is PhysOrg. Treat both with caution.

In general, i think the problem with sites like this is that they contribute to the public's sense that "oh, scientists say one thing this week, another the next." Since the public doesn't understand the tentativeness of most preliminary research and the importance of building a consensus before feeling work is reliable, these sorts of things give them the sense that the whole endeavor is two steps away from chaos. Which is very unfortunate.

Ok, rant over - sorry i used your post as an example.

OK, now post something down to earth on this here.