Send us your feedback at New Scientist! If you enjoy following the latest advancements in science and technology, let us know your thoughts by emailing feedback@newscientist.com.
Even the Strangest Theories
This vacation, many fans spent their time reflecting on the final episode of Stranger Things. We experienced laughter, tears, and heated discussions about the storyline—especially its conclusion. Can we really say it was a fitting ending like Return of the King? (In our opinion, it was.)
In today’s online culture, vocal fan backlash is common. Some theorized that the finale was merely a ruse, leading to wild claims like “Conformity Gate” (not our term!). They argue that despite its two-hour runtime and cinematic release, the concluding episode was just a setup for a secret final episode, set to air this January. Critics point to a continuity error that suggests the entire narrative was an illusion crafted by Vecna, the mind-controlling antagonist.
Initially, we found these theories unconvincing, especially since the criticisms revolved around minor details. After all, the show itself defies physics—should we really be worried about the color of a graduation gown?
For newcomers, the storyline of Stranger Things unfolds in a small Indiana town beset by a secretive government lab conducting dangerous experiments. Spoiler alert: these experiments inadvertently open a portal to the “Upside Down,” a horrifying alternate dimension that mirrors the town, albeit in a more sinister light. Ultimately, it’s revealed that this Upside Down functions as a wormhole to yet another realm known as the Abyss.
If the Upside Down is indeed a wormhole, what then is the swirling red object levitating above? Some describe it as containing “exotic matter,” a theoretical substance crucial for stabilizing a genuine wormhole (although its existence remains unproven). This complicates matters further since the entrance to the Abyss exists in the Upside Down’s skies.
We’ve contemplated this for weeks, yet the whirling object’s purpose remains a mystery. Why does shooting it with a gun liquefy its surroundings, while an explosion obliterates the entire Upside Down? Wouldn’t such destruction release enough energy to obliterate a significant part of the East Coast?
Perhaps physicists focused on adaptive gate theory should tackle the bizarre phenomena within the Upside Down. There could be a Nobel Prize—or at least an Ig Nobel Prize—waiting for someone who can crack these mysteries.
Sparkling Sports Benefits
What could be more exhilarating than attending a live sports event? The thrill comes from being part of the crowd, cheering on your favorite players. But what if drinking soda while cheering made it even more enjoyable?
Alice Klein, a reporter, highlighted a study that demonstrated that spectators at a women’s college basketball game experienced greater enjoyment and a stronger sense of belonging when they consumed sparkling water instead of plain water. The researchers noted, “Drinking sparkling water together serves as a low-impact, non-alcoholic ritual, fostering social connection during and after live sports events.”
While Alice found this perspective amusing, editor Jacob Aaron defended the research: “They studied 40 individuals; what more could they need?” Readers may form their own opinions on the validity of this evidence. Nonetheless, we want to draw attention to the “competing interests” stated in the research paper, which we won’t comment on further. Here’s the statement:
“This study received funding from Asahi Soft Drinks Co., Ltd. WK and SM are employees of Asahi Soft Drinks Co., Ltd. The authors declare that this funding had no influence on the study design, methodology, analysis, or interpretation of the results. The sponsor has no control over the interpretation, writing, or publication of this study.”
AI Mistakes and Missteps
Reader Peter Brooker reached out to suggest a new section titled “AI Bloopers.” After using a well-known search engine, he was astounded to discover that the AI confidently asserted the first six prime numbers were 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11.
We believe this section has long existed, albeit without a formal name. In fact, we often discuss how frequently to highlight these AI blunders. A weekly column could easily be filled with AI failures, but we worry it may become monotonous.
In line with Peter’s suggestion, Ghent University’s new rector, Petra de Sutter, found herself in hot water after using AI to generate her opening speech. It included fabricated quotes purportedly from Albert Einstein.
As reported by Brussels Times: “Impressively, De Sutter warned about the dangers of AI in her speech, advising that AI-generated content should not be ‘blindly trusted’ and that such text is ‘not always easy to distinguish from the original work.’”
Have a story for Feedback?
Share your insights with us at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. Previous feedback and this week’s comments can be accessed on our website.
Source: www.newscientist.com
