How is the paper they published not proper? It's a pretty classic, standard format description of an experiment. And do remember that this paper is already a replication of a Chinese experiment that also published a paper. I'm reading it right now, though sadly it's mostly way too technical for me. Of course all of this is in early stages, but you can't deny that interesting work is being described here.GabeZhul said:If they actually get replication and publish a proper paper, then I will believe it.
I get being skeptical, though I myself just enjoy being optimistic too much, but give them some credit here. They did their work alright. Is the work finished? Good lord no it has barely begun, but that in part makes it so tantalizing if you ask me. Isn't it exciting to see the research plans they're drawing up? Isn't it cool to see that this warranted both intensive research by Chinese scientists, then see it get replicated by NASA who is then planning to bring this to even more research centers? That's pretty freakin' awesome if you ask me. I really do miss the pioneering, enterprising and optimistic attitude we used to have about scientific progress. It made everything feel so more alive.
As for the journalism, of course scientific journalism has a lot of problems. It actually saddens me that the paper is referred to so little in the news outlets that report about this. Hell, the actual proper information and plans are a lot more awesome and exciting than the sensationalist articles about it, and I ain't even into physics all that much. Yet all we see are silly comparisons to Star Trek and whatnot.