Re: [Phys-L] Decoherence and gravitational time dilation

[Bernard Cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org>]

On 2015, Oct 27, , at 06:08, Savinainen Antti <antti.savinainen@kuopio.fi> wrote:

> Just recently I was told that about 50% of the papers in Nature turn out to be incorrect (I do not have a reference for the claim, unfortunately). This is usually not because of a sloppy review process but rather due to the nature of new ideas.
>
> --------


So the submissions are peer reviewed?     The only peers are people (sometimes only one?) who are familiar w/ the subject?  


bc thinks maybe Nature is the journal for new crazy ideas?      And

reminded of the idea that Hoyle was most responsible for advancing astrophysics, because his “crazy” ideas would spur his colleagues to prove their falsity thereby making concomitant discoveries.