Have you considered subjecting this to expert scrutiny by submitting to a journal? That's probably better than getting hot takes on HN by random technology enthusiasts, skeptics, anon experts, and trolls.

▲

tux3 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Realistically I don't see how this could be submitted to a journal as-is.

I'm sure you could take this material and write a couple papers out of it, but right now this is a 60 page word document with commentary on a variety of topics from memory market economics to quantum computing.

It's full of self-congratulatory language like "The transition is not an incremental improvement within the existing paradigm; it obsoletes the paradigm and the infrastructure built around it". Alright, I'm happy to believe that this work is important. But this is not the neutral tone of a scientific article, it reads like ad copy for a new technology.

I'm sure there's interesting physics in there, but it needs a serious editing effort before it could be taken seriously by a journal.

▲

iliatoli 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The paper has been under peer review at Physica Scripta (IOP) since March 25. The reviewers will decide what stays and what's trimmed. You're reading a preprint, not the final version. The tone in the architecture sections reflects the scope of the claim — reviewers may ask me to moderate it, and I will. The core physics (Sections 2–3) is standard computational chemistry: DFT, transition state optimization, CCSD(T) validation. Those sections read like any other ab initio paper.

	▲	_alternator_ 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just remember Watson and Crick's famously humble line in their 1953 Nature paper: "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." Big discoveries will speak for themselves.

▲

iliatoli 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's under peer review at Physica Scripta (IOP) since March 25. HN is for visibility, not validation.

	▲	GTP 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It would be interesting to hear back after this passes peer review.