2 ms·
[This comment is from before a link to a poorly titled phys.org article was changed so that it pointed to the nature paper itself. He is not arguing that the t
by escape_goat 12y ago
[This comment is from before a link to a poorly titled phys.org article was changed so that it pointed to the nature paper itself. He is not arguing that the title of the actual article is a bad title.]
- AndrewOMartin 12y agoIt's true that I wouldn't have complained if the link originally pointed to nature.com (rather than originally pointing to phys.org and then being edited to point to nature.com) but it's also true that I wouldn't have had the time or ability to work through so much as the abstract, which I find utterly, utterly impenetrable, even with a non-trivial interest in physics, and make any comment at all. In its defense, the phys.org article embedded a video with a much more accessible explanation of what happened. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaVHxUSiNk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlaVHxUSiNk The video is imperfect, there are a number of unnecessary over simplifications and patronizing sounds and silly faces, but I still found it more informative than the article.