For someone so worried about "irresponsible bullcrap" on this subject you sure have a pretty long laundry list of misconceptions about it that you're obviously suffering from. To note just ONE, you're clearly unaware of even the simplest distinctions in the field of ICF like the difference between direct and indirect drive fuel microcapsule design and gain profiles - which is PRETTY IMPORTANT.
Pro tip: before launching into a wildly hyperbolic rants, maybe do a 2 second search first.
I find that virtually all anti-nuclear organizations (who, to a person, will consider themselves to be environmentalists) will, upon being asked of their opinion, gush forth an endless stream of FUD bullshit about fusion research so ridiculously stupid it would make a cat laugh. Notice how I qualified the word "environmentalist" in the story with the term "anti-nuclear" and never said anywhere that ALL environmentalists are thus inclined. I made this qualification because I CONSIDER MYSELF and environmentalist. By all means though, don't let any of this keep you from your fatuous ramblings about "pigheaded morons" though.
I dispute your assertion that my phrasing was ad-hominem. Greenpeace's current stance on the matter is thus: "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy" Sortir du nucleaire's stance is that ITER is a hazard "because scientists do not yet know how to control DT reactions", a statement so laughably stupid I don't even know where to begin with it. There's a whole website devoted to trying to use scare tactics to shut it down at http://www.stop-iter.org/ These people are dangerous and calling them out on their dogmatic bullshit ideology isn't ad-hominem, it's an urgent necessity.
I know the above comment is modded flamebait because of the stupid note about nuking Japan, but he's completely right about the lateness of the laser's invention. The laser could have been invented in the 1930's, and very nearly was! Ali Javan himself, the inventor of the ubiquitous (or, at least, once ubiquitous in the 80's and 90's) helium neon gas laser said he would've almost certainly invented it in 1938 had he been around then. It is an accident of history that the laser took another 25 years to invent after most of the underlying science ("negative absorption", coherence, etc) were understood.
Ha HA! Wow! Cuompulsory state sponsored sterilization! What a whackjob, he actually WAS serious! So tell us, did you work at Sachsenhausen or Buchenwald in the '40s?
Oooh yeah I'm really religiously "jumping" to conclusions. We've had DECADES to flesh this one out and the evidence is not there. The onus is on the claimant to prove the phenomenon exists, not on me to prove it doesn't. The religious ones are the ones who take flaky anecdotes and blurry photos as real evidence and reject any skepticism about their credulity as "hasty". No.
I think the third video in that list you are talking about showing "BL" in Saudi Arabia is very important for everyone to see. How many times have we heard of people having BL sightings around power lines or "following power lines"? Frequently! And what does that video show? NOT BL! It's just arcing between two of the power lines that's traveling down the line Jacob's-ladder-like, probably due to wind. Was it initiated by lightning? Maybe, but it is not BL at all. People trust their senses and their assumptions way too much.
Absurd, you'd might as well also claim the Fox Alien Autopsy video and all the various close encounters of the blurred kind on Youtube aren't explained by the fact that we now understand things like kanashibari. The videos of so called ball lightning out there are far away, shaky, defocused and about as convincing as Chupacabra photos in the Weekly World News.
Look, I'm sorry to piss on everybody's parade, but its time to relegate ball lightning to its rightful place in history alongside phrenology and N-rays. The invention of the CCD and the associated UNBELIEVABLE proliferation of personal digital imaging devices over the past decade means that virtually everyone has a camera in their pocket at all times now. If the phenomenon of ball lightning existed at all, we should be seeing like one multiply reported HIGHLY CONVINCING video a week uploaded to the internet showing this. In fact, the number of ball lightning sightings and recordings over the past who knows how many years has pretty much stayed constant. If ball lightning exists at all, it's in the heads of observers, either as a result of a terrified mi-d thunderstorm hallucination or a result of some magnetic field induced phosphene as reported in this new paper.
If ball lightning were an actual physical phenomenon, the number of video observations of it should have skyrocketed over the past 10 years along with the availability of personal digital imaging devices in the same way that once Red Sprites and Blue Jets were first reliably observed with very high speed video in 1994, observational replication around the world was practically IMMEDIATE and widespread.
Sweet URL that goes nowhere bro! I tried copying it in here but/. gave me a lameness error "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.".
"This one will be ignored by the nay-sayers just like all the others."
And all the rather serious problems with this particular study's methodology that everyone else here is pointing out definitely won't be ignored by the true believer yea-sayers such as yourself. Right?
I would like to endorse the sentiment expressed by Ars and expand upon it. Since I have access to most scientific journals, a couple days ago when this study was first published, but before any secondary analysis appeared on the web, I printed it out and took it home to read. I read scientific papers all the time (usually physics and chemistry), probably hundreds of papers per year, so I like to think that I'm pretty familiar with how good science is done and what constitutes a well designed, rigorously conducted investigation.
The impression I got while reading this paper, is that it is a total piece of crap. It is confusingly written to begin with, but there are serious problems with methodology, controls, conclusions, assumptions about caloric intake and claimed statistical significance. It's a joke. Which, I guess is why it's published in an obscure journal with a pathetic 2.7 impact factor. Two sites explaining the problems in more detail are the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe forums at: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,26925.15.html and this blog post by Marion Nestle (a New York University professor in the department of nutrition, food studies, and public health with a Ph.D. in molecular biology): http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/
None of this told me how Princeton, of all places, could publish such a shit study though.....until I noticed this at the top of the paper that all the authors are from the Uni's PSYCHOLOGY department. Oh, I guess that's how.
"Until then, don't be so cock-eyed and smug in your "logical" denial."
You should take a little of your own advice, your mind is slipping in your advancing age old man. Your arguments are absurd antique canards as unreasoned as the incoherent ramblings of a senile witch doctor.
"who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem?"
Who's to say there isn't a fucking purple unicorn that shits rainbows and barfs candy? Yeah, you're right, absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence - but it sure as hell doesn't mean EVIDENCE either!
"Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from?"
Honestly, are you serious with this silly shit? Gosh, I guess I should be careful about my disbelief in Poseidon! After all, we haven't absolutely proven beyond every shadow of a doubt that he ISN'T pulling the strings behind the scenes and actually running the cosmos, right? I have a new word for you, it's called parsimony, look it up.
The long list of lame jokes that would inevitably accompany this article are obvious and unsurprising. But these "oooh now I can get to my next meeting within one yoctosecond of it starting" jokes may be more apt than you realize. There is a real issue of how to even use a clock this accurate at all. This new Al ion clock is supposedly accurate to one part in 10^17, yes? An article I read in SciAm ~8 years ago predicted this milestone would be reached within the decade, and it seems they were right. The problem is, you will introduce a relativistic time dilation to a clock with an accuracy on the order of 1 in 10^17 merely by walking down the street with it. Similarly, you will experience a comparable magnitude of time dilation by reducing the earth's gravity you experience by raising your elevation off the ground by only 10 centimeters. Aside from pure physics experiments like measuring a potential variation in the fine structure constant since the beginning of the universe and such, I don't know how practical application of a clock this accurate could be achieved. For instance, even if you manage to get a time standard of this level accuracy aboard a GPS satellite, you need to know the satellite's location in orbit, it's "ephemeris data", to an equal degree of accuracy in order to make use of such a time standard. Is that even possible? How do you transfer a time standard of such extreme precision between two clocks while preserving its integrity? If that can't be done, what is the practical use of an absolutely stationary clock that can never be moved? Even for the measurement of the fine structure constant at something like 1/10^18, you will have to take into consideration the movement of the continent due to plate tectonics and the movement of magma bubbles in the planet's mantle in order to have confidence in the accuracy of your answer.
Let me translate the article for you so you don't have to waste time on its bullshit: bullied kids are responsible for their own torment and it's really their job to stop it from happening. --> F-you Clark McKown. Right in the ear.
I agree with most of what you said but I don't know where you got "and the lining up of the laser in this situation requires less precision than that of anti-missile systems that are around". That's definitely not true. Laser irradiation on a direct drive target for ignition requires exquisite precision. We recently demonstrated a significant hit on fusion yield in implosions of cryogenic, layered deuterium tritium ice capsules when beam pointing was off by TEN MICRONS. If you're injecting targets into your reactor chamber at 10Hz, you are going to need some serious, super accurate laser pointing unless you want your fusion yield to be severely diminished. That means real time tracking of the target with hundreds of final focusing lenses that are all about 10 meters (at least) away from the target chamber center. Good luck!
You don't even want to get into the problem of the cryogenic microcapsules melting before they reach the target chamber center. I've seen DT ice filled microcapsules melt, boil and explode within ~3 seconds of exposure to the thermal radiation from the inner wall of the TC at ambient temperature. Wanna take a guess as to how much that time is going to be reduced when your TC is at 800 Kelvin reactor operating temperature? Yeah, that means you are going to need to inject the pellets at extremely high velocity to minimize the thermal exposure time, and your lasers will then have to track it that much faster. Furthermore, how the hell do you deal with the horrible vibration on your focus lenses created by detonating the equivalent of roughly 50 pounds of dynamite (200 MJ) in the TC at 10Hz. Yeah... I'm as excited about this as anyone, but we have a LOT of problems still left to solve.
The odds are 100%, as this has always been the ACTUAL method used by woo-woo, acupuncture, "complementary alternative" medicine peddlers who to this day are still selling the laughable fraud of "acupuncture-only anesthesia" surgery.
What's missing from this discussion, and so far as I can see from any proposal site discussions on this mission, is how to get the data back from the probe! If this is going to be a lander without an orbiter, you have a SERIOUS problem of how to get data back to earth. We talked about this very topic 5 years ago here after Huygens landed. People are going to want high-res images, audio and at least some video in addition to all the other basic science data from this mission. That is a HUGE amount of information to get back to earth from a billion miles out, while floating on a lake of CH4 under a thick atmosphere. The Huygens probe had 2 redundant, 8 watt, medium gain (partially directional) on board radio transmitters that sent all the data from the probe through the Cassini orbiter relay system. It took VLBI aperture synthesis, simultaneously using ~20 of some of the largest radio telescopes around the world JUST TO HEAR THE CARRIER SIGNAL of Huygens as it descended on Titan. We couldn't get any actual data directly from Huygens, we couldn't hear modulation of the signal clearly from that far away.
Huygens had a power budget from its NaS batteries of ~250W, you're not going to do much better than that with a sterling radioisotope generator for this proposed mission. So you have maybe 20W of radio power to use on this mission in order to get all your data back from Titan, you NEED to use a directional (high gain) antenna to do that. How the hell do you accurately and consistently point a high gain antenna directly at earth when rotating and bobbing around wildly while floating over the waves of a Titanian lake?!
"Just because one researcher commits the "biggest fraud in physics in the last 50 years" that happens to involve transistors doesn't mean all such research is fradulent and there is no reason at all from your link to be more skeptical than normal about this research."
Ahhh, a swing and miss, I felt the wind from that one though! I'm afraid that you (and the schizophrenic raving lunatic AC responding just before you) are making rather unwarranted assumptions about my comment. I never suggested "all such research is fradulent [sic]". I am suggesting that in a field where the science is currently progressing at breakneck speed and is consequently ferociously competitive, at the absolute cutting edge of the cutting edge of materials science and single atom manipulation, a breakthrough discovery as important and consequential as this needs to demonstrate replicability before the provisional acceptance warranted by the evidence in this paper alone can be elevated to the level of confident belief in the phenomenon being demonstrated. So yes, there is rational reason to be a little "more skeptical than normal about this research" because extraordinary claims require demonstration of a commensurate (ie. more than normal) level of extraordinary evidence in their favor before being accepted as solid fact. This is how science and rational skepticism works. Trust, but verify.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone so worried about "irresponsible bullcrap" on this subject you sure have a pretty long laundry list of misconceptions about it that you're obviously suffering from. To note just ONE, you're clearly unaware of even the simplest distinctions in the field of ICF like the difference between direct and indirect drive fuel microcapsule design and gain profiles - which is PRETTY IMPORTANT.
"'Anti-fusion environmentalist organizations' I wonder who that is exactly? Care to name one?"
Well here ya go Einstein: http://www.stop-iter.org/
here's another: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/index.shtml
and oh look, another: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/
Pro tip: before launching into a wildly hyperbolic rants, maybe do a 2 second search first.
I find that virtually all anti-nuclear organizations (who, to a person, will consider themselves to be environmentalists) will, upon being asked of their opinion, gush forth an endless stream of FUD bullshit about fusion research so ridiculously stupid it would make a cat laugh. Notice how I qualified the word "environmentalist" in the story with the term "anti-nuclear" and never said anywhere that ALL environmentalists are thus inclined. I made this qualification because I CONSIDER MYSELF and environmentalist. By all means though, don't let any of this keep you from your fatuous ramblings about "pigheaded morons" though.
I dispute your assertion that my phrasing was ad-hominem. Greenpeace's current stance on the matter is thus: "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy" Sortir du nucleaire's stance is that ITER is a hazard "because scientists do not yet know how to control DT reactions", a statement so laughably stupid I don't even know where to begin with it. There's a whole website devoted to trying to use scare tactics to shut it down at http://www.stop-iter.org/ These people are dangerous and calling them out on their dogmatic bullshit ideology isn't ad-hominem, it's an urgent necessity.
I know the above comment is modded flamebait because of the stupid note about nuking Japan, but he's completely right about the lateness of the laser's invention. The laser could have been invented in the 1930's, and very nearly was! Ali Javan himself, the inventor of the ubiquitous (or, at least, once ubiquitous in the 80's and 90's) helium neon gas laser said he would've almost certainly invented it in 1938 had he been around then. It is an accident of history that the laser took another 25 years to invent after most of the underlying science ("negative absorption", coherence, etc) were understood.
Seems to be a pretty common occurrence, whatever the cause.
Ha HA! Wow! Cuompulsory state sponsored sterilization! What a whackjob, he actually WAS serious! So tell us, did you work at Sachsenhausen or Buchenwald in the '40s?
Oooh yeah I'm really religiously "jumping" to conclusions. We've had DECADES to flesh this one out and the evidence is not there. The onus is on the claimant to prove the phenomenon exists, not on me to prove it doesn't. The religious ones are the ones who take flaky anecdotes and blurry photos as real evidence and reject any skepticism about their credulity as "hasty". No.
They're called sparks Einstein, nothing "fell off" the plane.
I think the third video in that list you are talking about showing "BL" in Saudi Arabia is very important for everyone to see. How many times have we heard of people having BL sightings around power lines or "following power lines"? Frequently! And what does that video show? NOT BL! It's just arcing between two of the power lines that's traveling down the line Jacob's-ladder-like, probably due to wind. Was it initiated by lightning? Maybe, but it is not BL at all. People trust their senses and their assumptions way too much.
Absurd, you'd might as well also claim the Fox Alien Autopsy video and all the various close encounters of the blurred kind on Youtube aren't explained by the fact that we now understand things like kanashibari. The videos of so called ball lightning out there are far away, shaky, defocused and about as convincing as Chupacabra photos in the Weekly World News.
Look, I'm sorry to piss on everybody's parade, but its time to relegate ball lightning to its rightful place in history alongside phrenology and N-rays. The invention of the CCD and the associated UNBELIEVABLE proliferation of personal digital imaging devices over the past decade means that virtually everyone has a camera in their pocket at all times now. If the phenomenon of ball lightning existed at all, we should be seeing like one multiply reported HIGHLY CONVINCING video a week uploaded to the internet showing this. In fact, the number of ball lightning sightings and recordings over the past who knows how many years has pretty much stayed constant. If ball lightning exists at all, it's in the heads of observers, either as a result of a terrified mi-d thunderstorm hallucination or a result of some magnetic field induced phosphene as reported in this new paper.
If ball lightning were an actual physical phenomenon, the number of video observations of it should have skyrocketed over the past 10 years along with the availability of personal digital imaging devices in the same way that once Red Sprites and Blue Jets were first reliably observed with very high speed video in 1994, observational replication around the world was practically IMMEDIATE and widespread.
Sweet URL that goes nowhere bro! I tried copying it in here but /. gave me a lameness error "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.".
Do editors do ANYthing at this site anymore?
Try here instead:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8627835.stm
Maybe because in addition to removing racial bias and social fear it also removes around 40 IQ points on average?
Well, are you sure that it didn't... maybe just make you feel a little.... inadequate?
http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/04/doctor-whos-new-tardis-nsfw/
Just remember to turn the mic to Houston off of VOX.
HOUSTON: "Uhhh, were getting a pretty steady 2-3 Hz slapping sound down here guys. Are all systems ok up there, and any ideas on a cause?"
"This one will be ignored by the nay-sayers just like all the others."
And all the rather serious problems with this particular study's methodology that everyone else here is pointing out definitely won't be ignored by the true believer yea-sayers such as yourself. Right?
I would like to endorse the sentiment expressed by Ars and expand upon it. Since I have access to most scientific journals, a couple days ago when this study was first published, but before any secondary analysis appeared on the web, I printed it out and took it home to read. I read scientific papers all the time (usually physics and chemistry), probably hundreds of papers per year, so I like to think that I'm pretty familiar with how good science is done and what constitutes a well designed, rigorously conducted investigation.
The impression I got while reading this paper, is that it is a total piece of crap. It is confusingly written to begin with, but there are serious problems with methodology, controls, conclusions, assumptions about caloric intake and claimed statistical significance. It's a joke. Which, I guess is why it's published in an obscure journal with a pathetic 2.7 impact factor. Two sites explaining the problems in more detail are the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe forums at: http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,26925.15.html and this blog post by Marion Nestle (a New York University professor in the department of nutrition, food studies, and public health with a Ph.D. in molecular biology): http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/
None of this told me how Princeton, of all places, could publish such a shit study though.....until I noticed this at the top of the paper that all the authors are from the Uni's PSYCHOLOGY department. Oh, I guess that's how.
"Until then, don't be so cock-eyed and smug in your "logical" denial."
You should take a little of your own advice, your mind is slipping in your advancing age old man. Your arguments are absurd antique canards as unreasoned as the incoherent ramblings of a senile witch doctor.
"who is to actually say that God is not waiting for us beyond the last theorem?"
Who's to say there isn't a fucking purple unicorn that shits rainbows and barfs candy? Yeah, you're right, absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence - but it sure as hell doesn't mean EVIDENCE either!
"Physics is not complete yet so isn't it hubris to proclaim that there is no God without a complete understanding of where our Universe came from?"
Honestly, are you serious with this silly shit? Gosh, I guess I should be careful about my disbelief in Poseidon! After all, we haven't absolutely proven beyond every shadow of a doubt that he ISN'T pulling the strings behind the scenes and actually running the cosmos, right? I have a new word for you, it's called parsimony, look it up.
The long list of lame jokes that would inevitably accompany this article are obvious and unsurprising. But these "oooh now I can get to my next meeting within one yoctosecond of it starting" jokes may be more apt than you realize. There is a real issue of how to even use a clock this accurate at all. This new Al ion clock is supposedly accurate to one part in 10^17, yes? An article I read in SciAm ~8 years ago predicted this milestone would be reached within the decade, and it seems they were right. The problem is, you will introduce a relativistic time dilation to a clock with an accuracy on the order of 1 in 10^17 merely by walking down the street with it. Similarly, you will experience a comparable magnitude of time dilation by reducing the earth's gravity you experience by raising your elevation off the ground by only 10 centimeters. Aside from pure physics experiments like measuring a potential variation in the fine structure constant since the beginning of the universe and such, I don't know how practical application of a clock this accurate could be achieved. For instance, even if you manage to get a time standard of this level accuracy aboard a GPS satellite, you need to know the satellite's location in orbit, it's "ephemeris data", to an equal degree of accuracy in order to make use of such a time standard. Is that even possible? How do you transfer a time standard of such extreme precision between two clocks while preserving its integrity? If that can't be done, what is the practical use of an absolutely stationary clock that can never be moved? Even for the measurement of the fine structure constant at something like 1/10^18, you will have to take into consideration the movement of the continent due to plate tectonics and the movement of magma bubbles in the planet's mantle in order to have confidence in the accuracy of your answer.
Let me translate the article for you so you don't have to waste time on its bullshit: bullied kids are responsible for their own torment and it's really their job to stop it from happening. --> F-you Clark McKown. Right in the ear.
here you go. I can haz monies nao plz? kthxbye.
I agree with most of what you said but I don't know where you got "and the lining up of the laser in this situation requires less precision than that of anti-missile systems that are around". That's definitely not true. Laser irradiation on a direct drive target for ignition requires exquisite precision. We recently demonstrated a significant hit on fusion yield in implosions of cryogenic, layered deuterium tritium ice capsules when beam pointing was off by TEN MICRONS. If you're injecting targets into your reactor chamber at 10Hz, you are going to need some serious, super accurate laser pointing unless you want your fusion yield to be severely diminished. That means real time tracking of the target with hundreds of final focusing lenses that are all about 10 meters (at least) away from the target chamber center. Good luck!
You don't even want to get into the problem of the cryogenic microcapsules melting before they reach the target chamber center. I've seen DT ice filled microcapsules melt, boil and explode within ~3 seconds of exposure to the thermal radiation from the inner wall of the TC at ambient temperature. Wanna take a guess as to how much that time is going to be reduced when your TC is at 800 Kelvin reactor operating temperature? Yeah, that means you are going to need to inject the pellets at extremely high velocity to minimize the thermal exposure time, and your lasers will then have to track it that much faster. Furthermore, how the hell do you deal with the horrible vibration on your focus lenses created by detonating the equivalent of roughly 50 pounds of dynamite (200 MJ) in the TC at 10Hz. Yeah... I'm as excited about this as anyone, but we have a LOT of problems still left to solve.
The odds are 100%, as this has always been the ACTUAL method used by woo-woo, acupuncture, "complementary alternative" medicine peddlers who to this day are still selling the laughable fraud of "acupuncture-only anesthesia" surgery.
What's missing from this discussion, and so far as I can see from any proposal site discussions on this mission, is how to get the data back from the probe! If this is going to be a lander without an orbiter, you have a SERIOUS problem of how to get data back to earth. We talked about this very topic 5 years ago here after Huygens landed. People are going to want high-res images, audio and at least some video in addition to all the other basic science data from this mission. That is a HUGE amount of information to get back to earth from a billion miles out, while floating on a lake of CH4 under a thick atmosphere. The Huygens probe had 2 redundant, 8 watt, medium gain (partially directional) on board radio transmitters that sent all the data from the probe through the Cassini orbiter relay system. It took VLBI aperture synthesis, simultaneously using ~20 of some of the largest radio telescopes around the world JUST TO HEAR THE CARRIER SIGNAL of Huygens as it descended on Titan. We couldn't get any actual data directly from Huygens, we couldn't hear modulation of the signal clearly from that far away.
Huygens had a power budget from its NaS batteries of ~250W, you're not going to do much better than that with a sterling radioisotope generator for this proposed mission. So you have maybe 20W of radio power to use on this mission in order to get all your data back from Titan, you NEED to use a directional (high gain) antenna to do that. How the hell do you accurately and consistently point a high gain antenna directly at earth when rotating and bobbing around wildly while floating over the waves of a Titanian lake?!
"Just because one researcher commits the "biggest fraud in physics in the last 50 years" that happens to involve transistors doesn't mean all such research is fradulent and there is no reason at all from your link to be more skeptical than normal about this research."
Ahhh, a swing and miss, I felt the wind from that one though! I'm afraid that you (and the schizophrenic raving lunatic AC responding just before you) are making rather unwarranted assumptions about my comment. I never suggested "all such research is fradulent [sic]". I am suggesting that in a field where the science is currently progressing at breakneck speed and is consequently ferociously competitive, at the absolute cutting edge of the cutting edge of materials science and single atom manipulation, a breakthrough discovery as important and consequential as this needs to demonstrate replicability before the provisional acceptance warranted by the evidence in this paper alone can be elevated to the level of confident belief in the phenomenon being demonstrated. So yes, there is rational reason to be a little "more skeptical than normal about this research" because extraordinary claims require demonstration of a commensurate (ie. more than normal) level of extraordinary evidence in their favor before being accepted as solid fact. This is how science and rational skepticism works. Trust, but verify.
Notice that this discovery was NOT published in Nature. Wonder why? Here's why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n . Stay skeptical, wait for replication.