2 ms·

The Majorana particle stuff has a long history where the paper was retracted not due to a simple scientific error, but alleged intentional misrepresentation or

The Majorana particle stuff has a long history where the paper was retracted not due to a simple scientific error, but alleged intentional misrepresentation or negligence. - "Data manipulation and omission in 'Quantized Majorana conductance', Zhang et al, Nature 2018" https://zenodo.org/records/4587841 https://zenodo.org/records/4587841 The wormhole stuff has plenty of references in its inappropriate handling. These are accessible to a broad audience: - https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-into-question-20230323/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-in... - https://youtu.be/czjisEGe5Cw https://youtu.be/czjisEGe5Cw

refulgentis 3y ago
TL;DR: Still unclear what either example has to do with the claims. [1] Majorana particle A. Zenodo link: the authors use 'manipulating' to mean 'presentation of data', you are using it to mean 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel'. B. The only thing tying this to QC is anything you've said is the idea MS would be excited by the paper. That's it. Nothing else tying it to QC or QC applications or hype. C. If they purposefully manipulated the experiment to falsify data, they must be some of the stupidest people on earth, you don't get a Nobel without reproduction. Are you sure they did? No one else seems to be claiming any of that. [2] Google wormhole A. Source: "Last fall, a team of physicists announced that they had teleported a qubit through a holographic wormhole in a quantum computer. Now another group suggests that’s not quite what happened." B. Claim: 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel' C. QED: claim unrelated to source [3] Follow up question from me Are you comfortable making up people, claims about them and their actions, without sourcing? If so, I find that interesting, because you seem very, very, very, dedicated to the idea that researchers who ever make a mistake are doing it intentionally for attention and rewards. That's not how research works. We applaud retractions.

refulgentis 3y ago

TL;DR: Still unclear what either example has to do with the claims. [1] Majorana particle A. Zenodo link: the authors use 'manipulating' to mean 'presentation of data', you are using it to mean 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel'. B. The only thing tying this to QC is anything you've said is the idea MS would be excited by the paper. That's it. Nothing else tying it to QC or QC applications or hype. C. If they purposefully manipulated the experiment to falsify data, they must be some of the stupidest people on earth, you don't get a Nobel without reproduction. Are you sure they did? No one else seems to be claiming any of that. [2] Google wormhole A. Source: "Last fall, a team of physicists announced that they had teleported a qubit through a holographic wormhole in a quantum computer. Now another group suggests that’s not quite what happened." B. Claim: 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel' C. QED: claim unrelated to source [3] Follow up question from me Are you comfortable making up people, claims about them and their actions, without sourcing? If so, I find that interesting, because you seem very, very, very, dedicated to the idea that researchers who ever make a mistake are doing it intentionally for attention and rewards. That's not how research works. We applaud retractions.