The Physical Review Letters abstract[1] (kindly included as a link in the recycled press release[2] kindly submitted here) may lead to more information about this preliminary finding.<p>Research lab press releases are a known part of the Science News Cycle[3] and are at best just a teaser to get actual working scientists to read the peer-reviewed journal publications to see how much those really say.<p>There is such a visceral reaction to PhysOrg as a press-release recycling service here on Hacker News that I will, not meaning to put down the kind person who submitted this link, post some previous Hacker News comments about PhysOrg as a source below the references for this comment. It will be interesting to see what comes of this preliminary research report.<p>[1] <a href="http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i13/e136804" rel="nofollow">http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v111/i13/e136804</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-journalism-or-just-a-repackaged-press-release-heres-a-tool-to-help-you-find-out/275206/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/is-it-...</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174" rel="nofollow">http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174</a><p>SOMEWHAT LONG FAQ ON PhysOrg AS A SOURCE:<p>PhysOrg appears to have been banned as a site to submit from by Reddit. I learned from other participants here on HN that there are better sites to submit from.<p>Comments about PhysOrg:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3077869</a><p>"Yes Physorg definitely has some of the worst articles on the internet."<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149824</a><p>"I viscerally distrust anything from physorg.com. Anyone have a better option?"<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3198249</a><p>"Straight from the European Space Agency, cutting out the physorg blogspam:<p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1116/</a> (press release),<p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic1116a/</a> (video),<p><a href="http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1116.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/scien...</a> (paper).<p>"PhysOrg: just say no."<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3611888</a><p>"The physorg article summary is wrong, I think."<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108857</a><p>"Phys.org is vacuous and often flat wrong."<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4890900</a><p>"And note that the gravity lamp was announced on physorg.com, famous for how wrong it is about science topics."<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5106145</a><p>"I try and debunk/explain [shady] biological science news wherever possible here. In fact, it's typically my only contribution, but one I feel is highly important.<p>"Your perpetual (and totally correct) crusade against PhysOrg reminds me there are others doing the same, and for that I thank you."<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5276327</a><p>"Physorg? Ugh.<p>"Didn't even bother click, came here to read comments instead.<p>"Can HN please ban Physorg like everyone else?"