Unlike the previous entry, it was fairly easy to find the the original article, as the news article author kindly included links to the document as citations. With this I imagined the article to be at least mostly factual with respect to the research paper. However, int he research paper there is no clear or obvious abstract so I had to regard the first paragraph as the abstract. From reading the abstract alone, the article seems to be way off. One main difference is that while the news article uses this article to prove that clocks run at different speeds closer to high-gravity bodies, the paper (at least the abstract) does not discuss effects of gravitational bodies but how they were able to make atomic clocks more efficient and precise. Comparing the article to the rest of the paper, I don’t see much of what the news author said in her article in the research paper. The paper uses very specialized and difficult diction, physics is very complex after all, but in general the new author, Emily Conover, points out some of the research team’s accomplishments, but it wasn’t clear when the reseachers added those statistics into the paper. For example, Conover point out that there was a precisiion to “0.76 millionths of a trillionth of a percent, but I don’t remember seeing a similar number, even after reskimming the paper. Also, an interesting sidenote is that this is the most precise frequency recorded to date, but I am not sure how true this is.
