from the science-errors-that-do-not-lead-to-black-holes dept.
Remember that evidence of the early gravitational waves formed by the Big Bang? Apparently, it's not as surefire as scientists once thought. The newly peer-reviewed findings note that there's "unquantifiable uncertainty" in the source data; cosmic dust in the astronomers' map of the universe may have skewed the results. More recent mapping efforts also suggest that there might have been a false signal.
This isn't to say that the earlier conclusion was flat-out wrong. It's still possible that researchers proved the existence of post-Big Bang ripples, bringing gravitational waves into the classical physics model. However, it does mean that the would-be discoverers will have to cross-check their info with experiments at other telescopes before they can brim with confidence. For now, at least, our understanding of space hasn't quite been turned on its ear.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday June 23 2014, @09:00PM
And I just re-waxed my board!! Seems like astrophysics is going the way of nutritional science, announcing "discoveries" only to have them retracted shortly. Yes, it is interesting; yes, it is science. But is it necessarily news? And is it made of people?
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday June 24 2014, @03:35AM
Sorry to be pedantic, but aside from the question of whether gravity waves exist or not; they are most definitely a relativistic theory concept, not part of classical physics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24 2014, @12:57PM
"Classical physics" is the term used for everything non-quantum, including relativistic physics.
Basically you have two orthogonal classifications: classical/quantum and non-relativistic/relativistic.
(And Soylent News unordered lists are broken, apparently.)