The headline is a straight up lie. As per the article itself, it was conceived of in 1966 and experimentally confirmed in 2020.
I get what you're saying, but you also wouldn't say it was discovered in 1966 as it was simply theorized without any direct evidence. A lot of things are theorized before they are actually discovered to exist.
That's what discovery is: realizing that something exists and describing it.
You're talking about creating, using, verifying, observing, etc. There are lots of things Einstein discovered that we are still verifying. It doesn't mean he didn't "discover" general relativity.
“ Within scientific disciplines, discovery is the observation of new phenomena, actions, or events which help explain the knowledge gathered through previously acquired scientific evidence.”
Straight from wikipedia (page on discovery).
“ In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Straight from wikipedia page on Theory.
So if something is theorised to exist, it is neither a theory or discovery. Both cases need evidence and this has only now been presented.
Within science, someone can not “realize” something exist and claim discovery.
You took that from the page titled "Discovery (observation)". Of course it says that discovery requires observation.
Here's a more nuanced view:
Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/
So it can refer to either the thing itself or to the theory that explains it. Using your definition, theoretical scientists could never "discover" anything.
We say Einstein "discovered" general relativity, even though he was a theoretical physicist, and never physically observed anything first.
Fair point about my source and statement.
The main issue I have with your earlier statement is that you say “realizing and describing” equals discovering.
A proper theory at least needs some proof, be it purely theoretical. Otherwise one could argue that people discovered flat earth, there’s plenty of descriptions on how it works floating around.
Having purely theoretical proof also means I do not agree that theoretical physicists can not discover things. Einsteins discoveries were all substantiated by rigorous mathematical proofs.
Not quite. If I understood correctly, Nagaoka predicted magnetism in a thin material with electron deficiency. This happened in a thin material with 50% excess of electrons, which arguably is different or at least something Nagaoka didn't exactly predict.
Sexual?
“How does it work?” - ICP
Violent J in shambles rn
Website has too many ads, not clicking.
The best part is it was just copied from another site, at least it was cited. I sent to the site and it said the article is based on an article from another source.
Here's the true source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06633-0.pdf
How do you know if you didn't click
Because I’ve clicked on it many times before and it is wicked toxic.
I see wired and my immidiate thought is, whatever the article is, it's not worth it.
and isn't GDPR compliant.
just science related topics. please contribute
note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry
Rule 1) Be kind.
lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about
I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll