5 ms·

The paper has not been peer-reviewed yet.

xcv123 3y ago
Is this article not a peer review? Written by Sabine Hossenfelder. German theoretical physicist. "An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think it’s wrong. But I may be too." I suppose the theory needs to be tested.
- podiki 3y ago
  A peer review and a popular article exploring the proposal, though written by someone pretty qualified, are not the same thing. At the very least the audience and evidence presented are not nearly the same.
- scotty79 3y ago
  I think this theory is wrong about the sources of randomness. But it's super cool that they show that a bit of randomness could explain dark matter and energy. Personally I believe that the randomness might come from chaotic "background" gravitational waves from sources outside of universe and from times before Big Bang.
- mr_mitm 3y ago
  No. Peer review is an established process in which the editor chooses usually two to four expert peers who review the paper. It is double blinded to reduce bias. It is also not the point of peer review to judge the correctness of the theory. Reviewers check relevance, novelty, plausibility, consistency, overall correctness of methodology. "I think this is wrong" is not something an editor would accept as an argument not to publish. That's something you can write in a new paper. And I don't think Hossenfelder would like to see it not published just because she thinks it's wrong.
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
I'm not familiar with physics publishing. Is Physical Review X not a journal whose website would list peer-reviewed papers? https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040 https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.04...
- bluish29 3y ago
  Indeed, This is a peer-reviewed paper. However I do not know why it took more than two years from submission to publication. However that does not say much as I don't want someone to misinterpret this as a judgment on quality of the paper.
- podiki 3y ago
  The article in question here is a followup to that, as a preprint and linked in this submission: "In a recent paper [0], which has not been peer-reviewed" [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459

Is this article not a peer review? Written by Sabine Hossenfelder. German theoretical physicist. "An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think it’s wrong. But I may be too." I suppose the theory needs to be tested.

podiki 3y ago
A peer review and a popular article exploring the proposal, though written by someone pretty qualified, are not the same thing. At the very least the audience and evidence presented are not nearly the same.
scotty79 3y ago
I think this theory is wrong about the sources of randomness. But it's super cool that they show that a bit of randomness could explain dark matter and energy. Personally I believe that the randomness might come from chaotic "background" gravitational waves from sources outside of universe and from times before Big Bang.
mr_mitm 3y ago
No. Peer review is an established process in which the editor chooses usually two to four expert peers who review the paper. It is double blinded to reduce bias. It is also not the point of peer review to judge the correctness of the theory. Reviewers check relevance, novelty, plausibility, consistency, overall correctness of methodology. "I think this is wrong" is not something an editor would accept as an argument not to publish. That's something you can write in a new paper. And I don't think Hossenfelder would like to see it not published just because she thinks it's wrong.

eli_gottlieb 3y ago

I'm not familiar with physics publishing. Is Physical Review X not a journal whose website would list peer-reviewed papers? https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040 https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.04...

bluish29 3y ago
Indeed, This is a peer-reviewed paper. However I do not know why it took more than two years from submission to publication. However that does not say much as I don't want someone to misinterpret this as a judgment on quality of the paper.
podiki 3y ago
The article in question here is a followup to that, as a preprint and linked in this submission: "In a recent paper [0], which has not been peer-reviewed" [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19459