This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – brightrecruits.com can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today

Blog

And the winner is…

By Matin Durrani

For those of you wondering where we get all our ideas for news stories on physicsworld.com from, well obviously we have a bulging contacts book, we scour many of the leading journals, and we keep tabs on all of the key scientific experiments, facilities and space missions.

But, like all journalists, we do rely as well on press releases, including those supplied by the Alphagalileo service, which lists many of the latest releases from institutions in Europe, and those from a similar US-based service called EurekAlert! from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Now, EurekAlert! has revealed which press releases posted on its website were looked at most by journalists during 2010.

Nine of the top 10 were in biology and the biosciences, but the winner is one related to physics.

Curiously, it has nothing to do with anything that we at physicsworld.com would regard as all that significant – say the search for extrasolar planets or the hunt for the Higgs – and it certainly didn’t come anywhere near to making our list of the top 10 breakthroughs of 2010.

No, the top press released accessed by journalists on EurekAlert! was on a relatively obscure branch of physics. It concerned evidence, presented in the journal Science, that an unusual form of symmetry known as E8 – which a small number physicists believe underlies a theory of everything – may have been spotted in a solid material for the first time.

e1.jpg

We wrote about the paper at the time in January last year, which you can read here.

The paper may have proved so popular because it claimed to have shown that this 8D symmetry group describes the spectrum of spin configurations that emerge when a 1D chain of spins is chilled to near absolute zero and subjected to a specific magnetic field. The finding also suggested that the idea of a “golden mean” – previously only seen in mathematics and the arts – also exists in solid matter on the nanoscale.

But – and I’m guessing here – it may actually have been because journalists remember a controversial (and unrefereed) paper on E8, entitled “An exceptionally simple theory of everything” by an obscure, independent physicist called Garret Lisi, who is a keen surfer and does not follow a conventional academic life. Those traits – and some pretty pictures associated with E8 symmetry – led to a fair amount of press coverage, and far more than many string theorists felt, and still feel, it deserves.

In their view, this latest accolade from EurekAlert! will probably only make the situation worse.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

One comment to And the winner is…

  1. Michael Duff

    Being an article most cited by scientists would indeed be an ”accolade”; being an article most accessed by journalists is not quite the same thing, Matin.
    Experimental evidence for the group E8 is certainly of interest to physicists and mathematicians. But you guess that the journalists’ motives were to fuel yet more press coverage for a story of their own creation: the supposed success of Garrett Lisi’s ”Theory of Everything”. You may well be right but, given that Lisi’s claim ”to unify all the fields of the standard model” has been proved to be mathematically false (Feedback March 2011), it is a sad reflection on the state of science journalism.
    So you are no doubt correct when you say that many string theorists feel this coverage of Lisi is undeserved. String and M-theorists may also be disappointed that the discoveries of E8 in eleven-dimensional supergravity in 1979, of E8 xE8 in string theory in 1984 and more recent (peer-reviewed) papers on E8, E9, E10, E11 go unmentioned by Physics World. They may also regret that while your blog gave Lisi yet another plug, it failed to say that the E8 effect reported by the experimentalists was first predicted in 1988 by Alexander Zamolodchikov (who is, by the way, a string theorist).
    However, I think you are underestimating your readership if you think that dissatisfaction is confined to string theorists. All who value science expect The Institute of Physics to put mathematical truth above public relations. AS IOP President Jocelyn Bell said recently ”Pay us for exploding scientific myths”.

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux