Removed by mod
there fixed your idiotic headline
Well, it wasn’t my headline. Many communities don’t allow changing an article’s headline from what’s posted. So I just default to using the articles headline.
I’m unsure what you mean by this being my “only warning.”
Are you a mod or admin here and are saying that I’ve stumbled into breaking a rule, and that I have no more chances. Please clarify so I can adapt accordlingly.
Thanks!
Removed by mod
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
You can prove a lot of things with math. Doesn’t mean they’re real.
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.
As a rule of thumb, you can usually assume anything from iflscience is trash tier.
Understood. I’ll note that moving forward. Thanks!
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.
“And math’s just physics unconstrained by precepts of reality ”
deleted by creator
Here’s a better media coverage of the same paper https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00030-5
deleted by creator
In statistics and with arbitrarily questionable assumptions that might be true, but there’s other math.
deleted by creator
On the contrary, fundamental physics has been completely static for half a century. That doesn’t really have much to do with your main point, though.
I mean, you’re right in statistics, and statistics comes up constantly, but there’s no way to directly prove there’s only 100 prime numbers, for example. In number theory, there’s absolute truths, and a correct proof will inevitably align with them.
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
