3 ms·
Actual paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250404 Preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08144 http:
by semi-extrinsic 10y ago
Actual paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250404 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.250404
Preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08144 http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08144
Since this is published in PRL, it's been through some fairly stringent peer review. So I'll be mildly sceptical until someone wiser weighs in.
Paging Dr. Aaronson, Dr. Aaronson to the blogosphere.
- jessriedel 10y agoPRL does a fine job of checking scientific soundness, but their assessment of importance/notability is unimpressive, like most processes involving a handful of humans. (I've published there, and it was far from my most notable result.) Lots of boring stuff passes the filter.