Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jinto36 1355 days ago
I'm not sure why then they couldn't just apply a more standard background subtraction method and show that the result still holds. Note that this approach was "room temperature" but under very (very) high pressure.
2 comments

It's not that they did the background subtraction in a non-standard way, it's that they didn't have a measurement of the background to subtract (it being too hard to measure directly), so they instead estimated what the background would look like and subtracted that. Some of their peers are claiming their estimate is bad, but the researchers are sticking by it.
In retracting the work, the editors at Nature were in some way certain "why" they couldn't apply a more standard method.