(2017-09-10, 07:54 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]More Bailey control freakery... (as for the rest, it appears you've not read the paper).
I think you should let the DB thing go... Just forget he ever existed or something. Treat him here as any other poster, and let's go into the research/papers. Please.
(2017-09-11, 07:40 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I've been in contact with the author, and he did mention that he was planning to revise the preprint. I assume that's why it's been taken offline.
Am curious to know whether you shared your concerns over the statistical analysis with him?
(2017-09-11, 07:40 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I've been in contact with the author, and he did mention that he was planning to revise the preprint. I assume that's why it's been taken offline.
Thank you for verifying. Also to Roberta for confirming that peer review is upcoming.
(2017-09-11, 08:03 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Am curious to know whether you shared your concerns over the statistical analysis with him?
Yes, that was why I contacted him. He'd evidently had other feedback on the preprint before that, though. My impression is that he is very receptive to constructive criticism.
(2017-09-11, 08:21 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, that was why I contacted him. He'd evidently had other feedback on the preprint before that, though. My impression is that he is very receptive to constructive criticism.
Can you share what these concerns were?
(2017-09-11, 08:28 AM)E. Flowers Wrote: [ -> ]Can you share what these concerns were?
The problem is that there's a lot in the preprint to understand, and I don't think I understand enough to judge it fairly. The revisions he had in mind would address the essential concern, though, so I think the best thing to do will be to wait for the revised version.
(2017-09-11, 08:38 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that there's a lot in the preprint to understand, and I don't think I understand enough to judge it fairly. The revisions he had in mind would address the essential concern, though, so I think the best thing to do will be to wait for the revised version.
If the point is that it was too technical and perhaps even a bit convoluted, I agree. It took me a few hours to get the gist of enough to feel comfortable commenting on it, and there are still things there that seemed above my pay grade... But, then again, I am not a physicist and they are most likely the target public.
(2017-10-01, 07:51 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]A revised version of the preprint is now up:
https://osf.io/zsgwp/
Does it address to your satisfaction the statistical issues you raised? (I haven't made the time to read it in either form just yet)
(2017-10-02, 12:01 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Does it address to your satisfaction the statistical issues you raised? (I haven't made the time to read it in either form just yet)
Well, I've been slowly reading through Radin's double-slit papers, and haven't quite got to the end yet. But I am a bit clearer about things now. After a quick look at the revised version, a lot has been done to address the previous issues, and it seems reasonable as far as the V1 variable (which produces a Z value of 3.43), but I'm still not convinced about the procedure by which the V2 variable is added (or subtracted), to produce Z=4.68.
(V1 is related to the ratio of the amounts of light coming through the two slits, whereas V2 is related to a phase difference between them.)
There is still the puzzling feature that the V1 effect is in the opposite direction from the one expected.