Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Universitext

Comments on Literature, and Further Reading

Stephen J. Gustafson, Israel Michael Sigal

Published Jul 12, 2011• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-642-21866-8_25

Related papers

Comments on Literature, and Further Reading

Stephen J. Gustafson, Israel Michael Sigal

Universitext•Jan 1, 2020•0 citations

Comments on Missing Topics, Literature, and Further Reading

Stephen J. Gustafson, Israel Michael Sigal

Universitext•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations

Comments on Literature

L. D. Faddeev, S. P. Merkuriev

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1993•0 citations

Comment on Jakob, Dechamps & Maier

Peter A. Bancel

In this issue of JAEX, Jakob et al. (2024) report results from an experiment to test whether an implicit psychokinetic effect related to unconscious intention can alter the outcome of quantum events. The experiment is well conceived and executed. However, the claim of evidence to support the experimental hypothesis is undermined by errors of analysis and of omission. Some are not obvious and require a careful reading to discern. I explain the nature of the mistakes, where and how they arise, and the consequences for the inferences the authors’ draw. I emphasize that a helpful way to detect such problems is by following the chain of inference in experimental reports. Editors, reviewers, and particularly authors can protect the integrity of the scientific literature by reading carefully in this way.

Journal of Anomalous Experience and Cognition•Jun 5, 2024•0 citations

Comment on the literature definition(s) of "dynamical phase transition"

Stephen Whitelam

Comment on the literature definition(s) of "dynamical phase transition"

arXiv:2112.09107•Dec 16, 2021•0 citations

Some Comments and Reflections

Abner Shimony

NATO ASI series. Series B : Physics•Jan 1, 1990•2 citations
In this issue of JAEX, Jakob et al. (2024) report results from an experiment to test whether an implicit psychokinetic effect related to unconscious intention can alter the outcome of quantum events. The experiment is well conceived and executed. However, the claim of evidence to support the experimental hypothesis is undermined by errors of analysis and of omission. Some are not obvious and require a careful reading to discern. I explain the nature of the mistakes, where and how they arise, and the consequences for the inferences the authors’ draw. I emphasize that a helpful way to detect such problems is by following the chain of inference in experimental reports. Editors, reviewers, and particularly authors can protect the integrity of the scientific literature by reading carefully in this way.