Yes, with a completely different hypothesis in the headline.

Thanks for this, it's a much better article.

The Guardian is fine as general news sources go. But something like this is extremely speculative, and there's not much for a general reader to take away. It's not the Eureka stage, it's the "that's funny" stage.

Just my way of saying that I would expect real new-physics evidence/breakthroughs would first be reported through science journals before eventually ending up as a watered down story on The Guardian.

I was mainly surprised to see it there first, and that triggered my automatic skepticism.

A lot of people shirk at the Guardian because it's a notoriously left-wing, progressive paper politically. People often mirror their sentiments about that onto other, none political articles unfortunately.

On the science side it's mostly written by Nicola Davis. She has a MChem and DPhil in organic chemistry from the University of Oxford, which is more than most sciences journalists can say. However, she has a pretty prestigious output; anywhere between 5 and 20 articles a month. Seems like a lot of "read a journal article, write a slightly sensationalist story around it". Not the worst in the industry by any means.

Her Guardian bio: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nicola-davis

Is spelling part of science?

You mean it's uncalled that people react negatively to an article with a title claiming that all of physics is broken when the fact is that there's a small adjustment in a value that we don't have a good theory to predict?