>But even so, the scientists were surprised to find barium, which is 2.5 times heavier than iron, in the upper atmospheres of WASP-76 b and WASP-121 b.
It's amazing how often it seems that scientists are "surprised" - i.e. their theories were not borne out by the observational evidence. Perhaps because it's surprising, that makes it more headline-worthy, therefore there would be a bias in what gets reported. It would be interesting to see a meta-analysis of the "surprise" factor for study results.
I think the word "surprised" gets a lot of unfair implication added. (Usually in the format, "why are you surprised that..." or "you shouldn't be surprised that..."). "Surprise" just isn't as dramatic an emotion as people seem to imply. It's not like the word "shocked". I might be surprised that a one-in-five occurrence happens. It doesn't mean I had some kind of conviction that it wouldn't.
Of course their theories were borne out of observations, that's what theories are, a model of our world that fits past observations. When we make an observation that doesn't fit the model, it's surprising because it's by definition unexpected, but it's also an opportunity to update our existing models.
News website tend to focus on the "surprising " word because writers (in this case the PR firm who wrote the press release) have been taught to write "stories" with "characters" who feel "emotions" to engage with the audience, perhaps in a completely opposite way than how researchers themselves describe their discovery in science journals.
Would you not use surprised if you received results that differed from what you were expecting? I'm surprised something 2.5 time heavier than iron would be in the upper atmosphere at all. Wouldn't that be something that fell back to the surface? Then again, I'm not a planetary scientist type, so I'd probably be surprised much more frequently.
It's not like they are shocked or disappointed. To me, it just reads they received info they will now be looking at further than they were expecting to need. Maybe intrigued would be appropriate instead if you consider "surprised" to be as lazy as "very".
It's amazing how often it seems that scientists are "surprised" - i.e. their theories were not borne out by the observational evidence. Perhaps because it's surprising, that makes it more headline-worthy, therefore there would be a bias in what gets reported. It would be interesting to see a meta-analysis of the "surprise" factor for study results.