It’s fine these two scientists cautiously said “we may have.” For, their suggestion is based upon dark matter whose many aspects remain speculative at this time, for the record; and whose existence itself hows to a conumdrum relating to the future of the expansion of the universe.

I’m not professor and even not scientist but while reaching such an altitude in speculation why not suggesting another theory of a similar genre and mathematically demonstrable as well, which says that a hypothetic particle of negative mass can travel faster than the light speed.

Now, our problem is just that this hypothetic particle of mine remains to be found through experiments with a giant, and no less hypothetical, particles collider to be built some day—just as it is the case for the anti-graviton (a sub particle) of Profs Krauss and James whose existence remains no less hypothetical at this time!

If ever we can physically demonstrate the existence of the graviton (the elusive sub-particle responsible of gravity) some day, then I willingly aknowledge that an anti graviton is not entirely a fancy supposition; though it might itself remain no more than a theoretical thing before long, I surmise.

Meanwhile, it is true that we may not find a particle (or a sub-particle, more reasonably) of negative mass in the times to come;” exacltly as Profs Krauss and James cannot but acknowledge that, equally, “we may not” have accidentally shortened the universe’s life as long as we are unable to find an anti-graviton.

It’s too late now. The correct headline was:

“LOOKS CAN KILL!” -scientists

Wouldn’t it help if scientists wore shades? Make them all wear shades!