3 ms·

Title: Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time. Article: "The results will now need to be verified by external resear

• gus_massa 9y ago
  This is usual. I don't know why they explained it here. [1] This result was published in a peer review journal. It means that two or three experts read the article and found no evident flaw and think that it has enough details to make the experiment in another laboratory [2]. They didn't go to the laboratory and unbolted every piece to double check the setup, or make a copy in their own laboratory to check the experiment. So until two or three more laboratories try this and a few variations, this is still doubtful, but there is a good chance that this is true. [2] Usually the papers don't have enough information. You have to guess and email the authors and cross your fingers to reproduce the result. [1] My guess is that they explained this because the result is very unintuitive.
  • dflock 9y ago
    As you sort of imply in your second footnote, "has enough details to make the experiment in another laboratory" often _isn't_ a requirement to pass peer review, sadly.
    • semi-extrinsic 9y ago
      It's frequently a loose requirement; trouble is to know how much information is necessary to replicate, you typically have to do the actual replication (and iterate with authors over details). Not to mention that journals tend to dislike overly long papers.
• deepsun 9y ago
  That's probably why it's included in "fakenews" category on https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]