What is the problem with Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms?

In summary, the problem with Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms is that it contains outdated and inaccurate information. This can lead to confusion and misunderstanding for readers, especially those who are not well-versed in the subject. Additionally, the glossary does not provide enough context or explanation for complex concepts, making it difficult for non-experts to fully grasp the meaning of the terms. This highlights the importance of using reliable and up-to-date sources when discussing complex scientific topics.
  • #1
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
32,820
4,715
Just when you think you've read enough bad physics reporting in the mass media, along comes Reuters and lowers the bar even further down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T1EQ20100330

I'm really puzzled by how they can let something like this through, considering that one can easily google many of these things and find out such mistakes or rather poor definitions to some of these terms.

Zz.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This one is especially rediculous:

"STANDARD PRINCIPLE - The standard theory of modern physics, based on two other theories -- general relativity and quantum mechanics. Its main weakness is that it cannot yet fully describe gravity or mass."
 
  • #3
"Protons and electrons are types of hadrons." :rolleyes:
 
  • #4
Just a guess, but with tight deadines, poor edit, quality control, you get a bad product.

Phrases like:
A mysterious, invisible material that has an anti-gravitational power
scream high school or college intern to me, combine that with lackadasical review and you get what you see in the article.

I followed the link to the blog page of the editor, David Stamp, see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...eedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563".
Sample from the RSS Feed below:

Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, whose country is even more fiscally conservative than Germany, said help from the International Monetary Fund should be considered as a possible solution for Greece. <^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Europe's fight with debt [ID:nLDE6211JD] Graphic on euro zone debt crisis r.reuters.com/fyw72j Q+A on European Monetary Fund idea [ID:nLDE6280CY] Story on credit default swaps [ID:nLDE62A1J0] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^> Germany and France, the two leading euro zone economies, strongly oppose IMF involvement, arguing that it would suggest the currency bloc was unable to solve its own problems.

More bad examples. This speaks volumes, at least to me. Shame on Reuter's management for letting this happen.

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
ZapperZ said:
Just when you think you've read enough bad physics reporting in the mass media, along comes Reuters and lowers the bar even further down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T1EQ20100330

I'm really puzzled by how they can let something like this through, considering that one can easily google many of these things and find out such mistakes or rather poor definitions to some of these terms.

Zz.

Well, I'd give you my opinion, but after a few lines my vision was obscured by my own tears of blood... :cry:

"Protons and electrons are types of hadrons."

That's just plain upsetting! :tongue2:
 
  • #6
jtbell said:
"Protons and electrons are types of hadrons." :rolleyes:

Maybe the writer meant Protons and Neutrons. >_>

I really hope the writer meant Protons and Neutrons...
 
  • #7
rhody said:
Just a guess, but with tight deadines, poor edit, quality control, you get a bad product.

Of course I'm more sensitive to their errors on biological topics, but when such easily researched topics are so badly mangled, I have a hard time believing anything these news sources publish anymore. While politicians are no rocket surgeons, how do we know the reporters even get the political stories right when they can't even fact check something that is a LOT more based on facts than opinions?
 
  • #8
Ya know, I always find these kinds of mistakes in the media. But seeing how they present this information the masses, and most people don't even know what an electron IS, I applaud them for even trying, even if they fail miserably!
 
  • #9
Yea, I don't think politicians are anything like Dr. Tenma.
 
  • #10
sdcraigcooper said:
Ya know, I always find these kinds of mistakes in the media. But seeing how they present this information the masses, and most people don't even know what an electron IS, I applaud them for even trying, even if they fail miserably!

But in this case, not giving out any information is better than giving out the wrong information.

Zz.
 
  • #11
ZapperZ said:
But in this case, not giving out any information is better than giving out the wrong information.

Zz.

In this case it would be kinder to give the reader a "dual hemispherectomy" and get it over with than to essentially empower *explative deleted* "people" such as Chopra. *wince*
 
  • #12
"KNOWN UNIVERSE - The planets, stars and entire galaxies that give out light and can be seen from Earth -- but which scientists say account for only 5 percent of everything in the universe."

Ow.

"DARK MATTER - Invisible matter that scientists believe makes up some 25 percent of the universe and whose presumed existence accounts for how the trajectories through of visible stars and galaxies are bent."

This doesn't even make coherent grammatical sense, notwithstanding the jumble of concepts.

Compare with my recent comment on a one paragraph squib on the LHC. Reuters seems to have a particular inability to deliver science journalism.

diogenesNY
 
  • #13
ZapperZ said:
Just when you think you've read enough bad physics reporting in the mass media, along comes Reuters and lowers the bar even further down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T1EQ20100330

I'm really puzzled by how they can let something like this through, considering that one can easily google many of these things and find out such mistakes or rather poor definitions to some of these terms.

Zz.
Ack! :yuck: This is the pits!
 
  • #14
Gokul43201 said:
Ack! :yuck: This is the pits!

Good lord, fetch a doctor (NOT a physicist... lol) or a rabbi or a priest or SOMETHING!... this junk has turned Gokul into Bill The Cat! "Ack, Ack Thpppbbt!". :wink:

That said, I kind of felt like hacking up a hairball of misery when I add DiogenesNY's Rueter's quotes to ZapperZ.

We have an internet! We have this wonderful "series of tubes", so why the hell don't people try to use it for more than porn, misinformation and hate speech?! (yes, I'm exaggerating... a little...)
 
  • #15
Frame Dragger said:
Good lord, fetch a doctor (NOT a physicist... lol) or a rabbi or a priest or SOMETHING!... this junk has turned Gokul into Bill The Cat! "Ack, Ack Thpppbbt!". :wink:

:rofl: Great visual! :rofl:
 
  • #16
Moonbear said:
:rofl: Great visual! :rofl:

You are too kind Moonbear. :) naaaaah, you're right, it was good! :biggrin:

Kidding aside, let's all hear it for Bloom County!
 
  • #17
Hey, see how many errors and inaccuracies you can find out of THIS one!

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/What+name+Large+Hadron+Collider+could+reveal+origins/2910326/story.html

It's not as bad as the previous one, but again, any good undergraduate physics student could spot and point out these errors easily. These news agencies could do well by hiring these students very cheaply and get them to do some copy editing.

Hey, we could turn this "spot the mistake" into a nice little educational game! :)

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
ZapperZ said:
Hey, see how many errors and inaccuracies you can find out of THIS one!

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/What+name+Large+Hadron+Collider+could+reveal+origins/2910326/story.html

It's not as bad as the previous one, but again, any good undergraduate physics student could spot and point out these errors easily. These news agencies could do well by hiring these students very cheaply and get them to do some copy editing.

Hey, we could turn this "spot the mistake" into a nice little educational game! :)

Zz.

Ohhh... that just hurts. I can't wait until the LHC reveals a solution to violence and inhumanity! :cry:

One good turn deserves another...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224010814AAt3fEc

Enjoy! I recommend having a stained hankey to wipe away bloody tears and sputum (I know I needed it). Don't worry btw, I also found that my heart started beating again after a minute or two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
ZapperZ said:
Just when you think you've read enough bad physics reporting in the mass media, along comes Reuters and lowers the bar even further down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T1EQ20100330

I'm really puzzled by how they can let something like this through, considering that one can easily google many of these things and find out such mistakes or rather poor definitions to some of these terms.

Zz.

It was published just before April 1, though.
 
  • #20
No errors http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/sam/sam.html"

Waiting for Dogot

Everyone is eagerly awaiting the discovery of the Kibble boson (known colloquially as "The Dog Particle"), which was missed at the Fermi National Labrador. There have been speculations that it is too light to observe with available accelerators because it is really a gallstone boson, but such claims are unfunded.

:biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Count Iblis said:
No errors http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/sam/sam.html"

:biggrin:

spherical cow: 4π steeradians

ahahahhaa...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Ought ohhh, now I am very worried, I googled this phrase: "stupid physics sites" and got,

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,250,000 for stupid physics sites. (0.30 seconds)

There are some real zinger's in there.

I think we have ample enough evidence already, enough to make me wince, twitch or otherwise gesticulate all over the place... lol

Rhody... :rolleyes:
 
  • #24
rhody said:
Ought ohhh, now I am very worried, I googled this phrase: "stupid physics sites" and got,

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,250,000 for stupid physics sites. (0.30 seconds)

There are some real zinger's in there.

I think we have ample enough evidence already, enough to make me wince, twitch or otherwise gesticulate all over the place... lol

Rhody... :rolleyes:

Yeah... reading those sites essentially makes me want to drink and smoke... and I don't drink or smoke. It also makes me cry bile and vomit blood. :biggrin:
 
  • #25
rhody said:
Ought ohhh, now I am very worried, I googled this phrase: "stupid physics sites" and got,

Results 1 - 10 of about 5,250,000 for stupid physics sites. (0.30 seconds)

There are some real zinger's in there.

I think we have ample enough evidence already, enough to make me wince, twitch or otherwise gesticulate all over the place... lol

Rhody... :rolleyes:

This is not unexpected when you have a free-wheeling internet. You'll find dumb things on almost any subject, simply because people WILL say anything and everything, and think the rest of the world should read them. They have no reputation to uphold.

However, we expect a little bit more quality control from the media. The article that I cited originally is from Reuters, not some drunk who decided to write about LHC glossary. It is disappointing when such sources make such blatant mistakes. It shows that they have no respect for the subject matter, and can't be bothered to have some expert double-check what they wrote. It certainly calls into question the accuracy of everything else that they are "reporting".

Zz.
 
  • #26
Frame Dragger said:
One good turn deserves another...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071224010814AAt3fEc

Enjoy! I recommend having a stained hankey to wipe away bloody tears and sputum (I know I needed it). Don't worry btw, I also found that my heart started beating again after a minute or two.

WOW! What mastery. I especially liked:
Electrons are the smallest real Element of the Atom's components. Hence they are made up of a the same real tangible substance which was assembled during Creation of basic Masses of the Universe by our Creator.

Therefore ,based on the observation of the Hydrogen Atom we can conclude that its made of Mass structure being a very small volume of the atomic containment volume, and the rest of the volume is a Space Structure. This Space Structure could be called massless. So the Electron composition is both a Mass Structure and a Massless Structure. Hence it takes two types of structures to make up the atoms as listed in the Periodic table of elements.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
ZapperZ said:
This is not unexpected when you have a free-wheeling internet. You'll find dumb things on almost any subject, simply because people WILL say anything and everything, and think the rest of the world should read them. They have no reputation to uphold.

However, we expect a little bit more quality control from the media. The article that I cited originally is from Reuters, not some drunk who decided to write about LHC glossary. It is disappointing when such sources make such blatant mistakes. It shows that they have no respect for the subject matter, and can't be bothered to have some expert double-check what they wrote. It certainly calls into question the accuracy of everything else that they are "reporting".

Zz.

Zapper,

I emailed the guy at Reuter's who edited the article, along with a link to this thread and a comment on another piece of work (with blatant errors) he did for Blogs at Reuter's. Unlike the guy who worked for another major Science Publication, who answered BTW with a polite correction to the article with the error, this guy never responded. I stand by my original comment, that it is a management problem at Reuter's, and that there is no standard "process" in place with checks and balances to keep it from happening again, because the editor had another piece with a similar error not being corrected. Everyone can have a "bad day" now and then, but if you take a moment to accept criticism and make corrections, then move on. Sadly, this is not the case with Reuter's.

Rhody...
 
  • #28
inflector said:
WOW! What mastery. I especially liked:

Yeah, I love how he mixed sophistry with creationism to form a stupidity greater than the sum of its parts. :biggrin:
 
  • #29
Frame Dragger said:
Yeah, I love how he mixed sophistry with creationism to form a stupidity greater than the sum of its parts. :biggrin:

:rofl: answers.yahoo is a great source of entertainment! You never know which is going to be dumber - the question or the answer. I was recently flamed for stating that the Earth was not created during the big bang. :yuck:
 
  • #30
Borg said:
:rofl: answers.yahoo is a great source of entertainment! You never know which is going to be dumber - the question or the answer. I was recently flamed for stating that the Earth was not created during the big bang. :yuck:

Wow, that's stupid by the standards of science AND religion. :
 
  • #31
The best part of Yahoo Answers is that the person who asked (and hence doesn't know) gets to decide the "CORRECT" answer.
 
  • #32
inflector said:
The best part of Yahoo Answers is that the person who asked (and hence doesn't know) gets to decide the "CORRECT" answer.

Oh now THAT explains a lot... I did not know that. What the **** is Yahoo thinking?! *imagines the vast emptiness of the Yahoo corporate intellect* :yuck:
 
  • #33
No yahoo answers is way fun best thing on yahoo honestly.
 
  • #34
rhody said:
Phrases like: scream high school or college intern to me, combine that with lackadasical review and you get what you see in the article.

How would you define dark energy? That definition seems very good to me.
 
  • #35
RE:
A mysterious, invisible material that has an anti-gravitational power

I think this is misleading for several reasons:

1) "Mysterious" as a word adds no scientific descriptive value but serves to sensationalize the definition.

2) "Material" implies matter rather than energy.

3) "Anti-gravitational" implies that there is such a thing as anti-gravity.
 

1. What is the purpose of Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms?

The purpose of Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms is to provide a comprehensive list of terms and definitions related to the field of particle physics. It is meant to assist readers in understanding complex concepts and terminology used in articles and news stories about particle physics.

2. Why is there a problem with Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms?

The problem with Reuters' glossary of particle physics terms is that it contains several inaccuracies and outdated definitions. This can lead to confusion and misinterpretation of information, especially for those who are not well-versed in the field of particle physics.

3. How does the inaccuracies in the glossary affect the understanding of particle physics?

The inaccuracies in the glossary can greatly affect the understanding of particle physics as it can lead to incorrect assumptions and interpretations of information. It can also hinder the progress and development of the field as it perpetuates incorrect definitions and concepts.

4. Who is responsible for maintaining the accuracy of the glossary?

The responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of the glossary falls on Reuters and their team of editors and experts in the field of particle physics. It is important for them to regularly review and update the definitions to ensure they are current and correct.

5. How can the inaccuracies in the glossary be addressed?

The inaccuracies in the glossary can be addressed by Reuters by conducting a thorough review of the definitions and consulting with experts in the field to ensure accuracy. They can also provide a way for readers to provide feedback and suggest corrections to the glossary. Additionally, they can include a disclaimer stating that the glossary is subject to change and may not be entirely accurate at all times.

Similar threads

Focus all of your ire on me, if you would
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
659
Programs What can I do with a Chemistry BS and a minor in Physics?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
883
I Three inertial particles: Separating the twins from the paradox
    • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
I What would a hypothetical quark-quark collision yield?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Admissions Do I have a shot at top HEP-th programs?
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
419
I New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
Other Advice for Pursuing Physics: My Friend's Story
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
844
I Trying To Conceptualize Two Dimensions Of Time
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
A What is wrong with particle acceleration based fusion?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
I How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
    • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top