3 ms·
Just sayin, if this were real you'd publish it in Science or Nature, not something with an Impact factor of 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPL_(journal)#Abstr
by jldugger 5y ago
Just sayin, if this were real you'd publish it in Science or Nature, not something with an Impact factor of 2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPL_(journal)#Abstracting,_indexing,_and_impact_factor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPL_(journal)#Abstracting,_ind...). And probably you'd want a collaborator on the paper, if only to double check your math before submitting.
- ipaddr 5y agoIf it hasn't been published in nature or Science and passed some gatekeeper then the idea should be rejected? Strange no one is arguing the science.
- gus_massa 5y agoThe problem is that until the section "Predicting measurement results for the initial context" (inclusive) it is totally trivial if you have a background in Physics and Quantum Mechanics. It's not the usual model because it uses one (or two?) hidden variables, but it's easy to understand. But the next section "Predicting measurement results for an arbitrary context" is totally unintelligible. My guess is that the unintelligible part is hiding that when you measure a photon with a polarizer with an angle alpha, the other photon gets that information with an implicit faster than light communication. I have to read it again a third time, and I guess I'll need a fourth or fifth before I can have a definitive answer.
- jldugger 5y ago> If it hasn't been published in nature or Science and passed some gatekeeper then the idea should be rejected? No but if it's legit they'd take it. And yea, I expect a researcher to be passingly familiar with the most popular research journals that everyone reads. Don't you?