Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.

-- that guy

You need to forget about the details in order to grasp the essence.

Documentation is different from demonstration. Text (with graph or animation interspersed to unpack unintuitive terms) wins for documentation. Video could be good for demo if presented in a no-nonsense manner.

Scale of velocity as well so we have a more complete picture in phase space

The referees who let this slip are either brilliant or lazy (or both, I guess)

Resubmitting to multiple journals is not a typical (nor the "right" one however it is interpreted) strategy though (at least not in physical sciences). You'll usually ping the handling editor, who will then contact the referee on your behalf. The referee will then either "promise a report soon", or, in the event they didn't reply, the editor will find another referee. Nowadays with arxiv and such, there is usually no rush to actual publication as far as priority is concerned.

I'd also say, don't take the combative mindset as suggested in the comic. Think of it more as having some fresh pairs of eyes to check your work as well as communication (if a referee misunderstood something in your paper, chances are many readers will as well).

The offspring of a virgin birth are not exact clones of their mother but are genetically very similar, and are always female.

What's the source of the difference?

The point is there are established conventions among the practitioners on how these are pronounced, and not getting them right says something about the youtuber who may otherwise appear as an expert.

You might be right on how the name 'Schrieffer' should be pronounced in its original tongue, but I've heard multiple former students and colleagues of Bob Schrieffer pronounce it otherwise to conclude that theirs is probably how Schrieffer himself intended his name to be pronounced.

Yeah, can't wait to hear economists' take, or The Economist's..

Give me a way to physically shut off the microphone (like a camera shield on business laptops), then we will talk.

Strange topics had popped up in my Google feed after l spoke to someone about something I've never googled before

It is waiting for reproducibility is what it is. It won't matter much if it got published today in some no name journal -- a journal is going to gamble just as this youtuber did, for the slim chance of this being true (not saying it isn't)

Also, a quantum well is just particle in a box. Nothing fancy about it. Guy mentioned tunneling a lot but tunneling happens in metal, semiconductor, and insulator. Doesn't really mean anything. In fact if you need to tunnel, that means there's a chance to back scatter, so it won't be superconducting.

Not to be snobbish or anything, but at this juncture I wouldn't trust anyone who can't pronounce arXiv (or Schrieffer for that matter) correctly to explain room temperature superconductivity to me. Hell I barely believe anyone with a materials/physics degree...

Upvoted this just to see the said animation anyone?

While the phenomenon, namely bulk-boundary correspondence, is inspired by topological insulators, the fundamental physics here is rather classical, not quantum. It appears quantamagazine has since updated the title (physics -> physicists), but not the url.

What's interesting here is they were able to verify the bulk topological characters (winding number around the zero of the wave function, ie the vortex) via observational data. In physics it's usually the other way around: the edge phenomenon, that is the edge spectral flow, is easier to measure than the elusive phase winding of the bulk wave function.

Incidentally, the original theory paper from Delplace et al came out right after the physics Nobel prize was awarded to topological physics.

Technically technical