2 ms·

A) there are much better sources for science news than the daily fail - like the paper - http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html h

A) there are much better sources for science news than the daily fail - like the paper - http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys... B) this isn't necessarily retrocausality. Could equally be evidence in favour of the pilot wave formulation of QM. No spooky time travel, just a standing wave that guides the particles.

andyjohnson0 11y ago
Unfortunately, the letter published by Nature is paywalled after the first page. Science Daily has a write-up at [1] which is also probably more accessible to non-specialists. Agree with you on the daily mail. A really terrible source, and I have it null routed on my machine. Any chance of the mods changing the link and title? [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.ht...