3 ms·
"However, the detection of phosphine was suggested to be a possible false positive in October 2020,[11] and in January 2021 further research attributed the spec
by fnord77 6y ago
"However, the detection of phosphine was suggested to be a possible false positive in October 2020,[11] and in January 2021 further research attributed the spectroscopic signal to that of sulphur dioxide.[12]"
- goodcanadian 6y agoThis quote is not from the article and is only tangentially related to the article.
- fnord77 6y agoit should be pretty clear where the quote is from.
- gus_massa 6y agoCan I guess? Wikipedia? Never assume people will notice and understand correctly, it's much better to add a direct link. Anyway, it is very weird that the article talks about the 2020 announcement, but doesn't explain that is mostly debunked (as explained in your quote in the ggp comment).
- goodcanadian 6y agoContested, perhaps, but I think debunked is too strong of a term. I am acquainted with several of the people involved. While everyone makes errors from time to time, I find it very hard to believe Greaves, et al, would have been sloppy in any way. And, I think, the article was quite clear about the fact that the result had been called into question. Regardless, the article is about a different team, with a different instrument, and a different (historical) data set getting a result that may support the Greaves result. Talking about Greaves is largely tangential to the article.