| ▲ | godelski 8 hours ago | |
Unfortunately I have not found this to be true (though it is in this case). There are quite a number of articles that are misleading or flat out false. The best example is the quantum wormhole article and video[0,1], because it is egregious and doesn't take much nuance or expertise see the issues. I'm glad they made a note and wrote a follow-up[2], but all this illustrates what is wrong with the picture. For one, the article and video were published the same day as it was published in Nature[3]. Sure, they are getting wind of the preprints, but in this case there was none! They're often acting as a PR firm for many of the big universities and companies, unfortunately so is Nature. The article was published Nov 30th, but the note didn't come till March 29th![4] You might think, oh it took that much time to figure out that there were problems, but no, only a few days after the publication (Dec 2nd) even Ars Technica was posting about the misinformation. They even waited over a month after Kobrin, Schuster, and Yao placed their comment on ArXiv[6]. Scott Aaronson had already written about it[7]. There was so much dissent in that time frame that it is hard to explain it as an accident. A week or two and it wouldn't be an issue. But I think Peter Woit explains it best[8] (published, yes, Nov 30th). [0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-create-a-wormhole-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOJCS1W1uzg [2] https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-in... [3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05424-3 [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20230329191417/https://www.quant... [5] https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/12/no-physicists-didnt-... [6] https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07897 | ||