this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
10 points (67.9% liked)

Science

7151 readers
7 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You can prove a lot of things with math. Doesn't mean they're real.

[–] Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“And math’s just physics unconstrained by precepts of reality ”

Source: xkcd, every major’s terrible, square 2

[–] UniversalMonk@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fair point. And another poster voiced his frustration with the headline. And I guess I am not smart enough to realize that this was a poor article.

I'm not being smarmy, I honestly didn't realize it was a bad science article.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a rule of thumb, you can usually assume anything from iflscience is trash tier.

[–] UniversalMonk@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Understood. I'll note that moving forward. Thanks!

[–] azi@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

When you predict a new phenomenon from a current model, either you've opened the door to the discovery of this new phenomenon or you've demonstrated a shortcoming in the model. Both are useful to science.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

Parastatistics, if you have the required background and are looking for info.

The new thing is just that the ones described are guaranteed non-equivalent to normal fermions or bosons.

Math proves magnetic monopoles can exist. But no evidence and its very possible that it does not exist physically

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Oh no. We've used math to represent and model the things we've observed. Don't go claiming you've observed things just because your math works.

Actually run your darn experiments