3 ms·

So, the point of the entire article is that he didn’t like the title of paper he’s criticizing? The post implies flaws in the original paper, then at the very

So, the point of the entire article is that he didn’t like the title of paper he’s criticizing? The post implies flaws in the original paper, then at the very end seems to concede it was technically fine just should’ve been up front about entanglement. The post should be edited to be more upfront about what he realized after writing it.

gsf_emergency_2 1y ago
The paper is a non-sequitur. Charitably. By assuming no entanglement, it's also not a paper about quantum. (Entanglement <=> quantum) It should not be in Nature. It is... a homework problem, at best? To teach students not to get too excited about publishing. Without the technical footnote, it could still have been an interesting paper. But wrong As for homework problems, the blogpost is a better starting point for one. Maybe the blog author should be a prof, and the paper authors should become adjuncts
naasking 1y ago
> So, the point of the entire article is that he didn’t like the title of paper he’s criticizing? I think the article makes a good point when it says that nobody else he spoke to about it had noticed this qualifier either. There is a long history of papers in physics making grand claims that lead to decades of mistaken beliefs. For instance, von Neumann's mistaken proof ruling out any kind of hidden variable theory from reproducing QM. Some people still cite this incorrect proof to this day to dismiss hidden variables, 70 years later. And once you make the caveat obvious, the paper is kind of a nothingburger that got published in Nature.