They keep saying “study” but this isn’t a study, it’s a math paper. This is a “model.” The “model” shows this and that and those things, not “the study” of which there wasn’t.
And what the “model” shows is that instead of invisible mass we can’t see causing gravity, it could be alternating layers of invisible positive and negative mass.
There’s even less evidence for negative mass being possible than for many dark matter candidates that “only” have to be massive and non-interacting (or weakly) with photons. It’s always cool to kick around some new possibilities but this seems pretty weak. Negative mass opens up a big old can of worm(holes) too.
When you see study, it’s more statistical analysis of things.
So things like clinical studies doing studies on population of people.
Where this is more publication of a mathematical idea.
Source: have a degree in physics and it’s one of those unwritten rules. Kinda like how English sentences have an order. The soft brown big bunny sounds wired.
I’ve also got a degree in physics and I think it’s a valid if kinda wonky use of the word study. They studied whether or not GR allowed this specific thing and that’s enough to say it’s physically possible. It’s not just publishing an idea so much as proving the validity of it within current models, to me a study implies investigation of some kind and that’s definitely what went on here.
I’ve definitely heard it used this way before, even if it is less common. I wouldn’t say it’s an unwritten rule so much just that people have learnt to infer that there’s some direct observation going on.
They keep saying “study” but this isn’t a study, it’s a math paper. This is a “model.” The “model” shows this and that and those things, not “the study” of which there wasn’t.
And what the “model” shows is that instead of invisible mass we can’t see causing gravity, it could be alternating layers of invisible positive and negative mass.
There’s even less evidence for negative mass being possible than for many dark matter candidates that “only” have to be massive and non-interacting (or weakly) with photons. It’s always cool to kick around some new possibilities but this seems pretty weak. Negative mass opens up a big old can of worm(holes) too.
Does a study have to be empirical? I’m not aware of any rule.
When you see study, it’s more statistical analysis of things.
So things like clinical studies doing studies on population of people.
Where this is more publication of a mathematical idea.
Source: have a degree in physics and it’s one of those unwritten rules. Kinda like how English sentences have an order. The soft brown big bunny sounds wired.
TIL.
I’ve also got a degree in physics and I think it’s a valid if kinda wonky use of the word study. They studied whether or not GR allowed this specific thing and that’s enough to say it’s physically possible. It’s not just publishing an idea so much as proving the validity of it within current models, to me a study implies investigation of some kind and that’s definitely what went on here.
I’ve definitely heard it used this way before, even if it is less common. I wouldn’t say it’s an unwritten rule so much just that people have learnt to infer that there’s some direct observation going on.