Jump to content

Talk:Quantum Memory Matrix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:645:8480:c020:55b5:db16:a758:a7d5 (talk) at 16:32, 22 July 2025 (Pseudo-scientific hoax? Doubts about scientific correctness...: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pseudo-scientific hoax? Doubts about scientific correctness...

The "scientific" concept put forward in Neukart's work urgently need to be independently peer-reviewed (not by a dubious publisher like MDPI). This poorly sourced article seems to describe a speculative concept (or even a hoax?) from pseudo-scientific discourse. The fact that Neukart, who does not even have a PhD in physics, is now supposedly revolutionizing cosmology seems almost paradoxical. 185.104.138.80 (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging sourcing. A few clarifications:
1 Independent, peer-reviewed literature (non-MDPI)
Neukart F. et al., “QMM-Enhanced Error Correction,” Advanced Quantum Technologies (Wiley, 2024).
– Community-run journal published by Wiley.
Neukart F., “Geometry-Information Duality (GID) and Black-Hole Entropy,” Annals of Physics 465 (Elsevier, 2025) 125392.
– Long-standing, rigorously refereed physics journal.
These add to the previously cited Quantum 4 (2024) 525 article, giving three separate publishers—Wiley, Elsevier, and Quantum’s community journal, each with independent peer review and citations by unaffiliated researchers.
2 About MDPI material
Community views on MDPI vary (see WP:RSMPI); nonetheless, MDPI journals are indexed in WoS and Scopus, use external reviewers, and—importantly—the peer-review reports and author revisions are publicly accessible for the QMM papers. Upon verification, the peer review results are available online.
3 Regarding qualifications
According to his Wiki page, Neukart holds a PhD in Computer Science and Master’s degrees in Physics, Computer Science, and Information Technology (per the article). Under WP:EXPERT and WP:RS, interdisciplinary credentials are fully acceptable; verifiable sources, not field labels, determine reliability.
In light of multiple peer-reviewed sources from three independent publishers and the author’s documented academic background, labeling the theory "pseudo-scientific" does not align with Wikipedia policy. The term should therefore be removed, and the article improved by citing the Wiley and Elsevier papers above. 2601:645:8480:C020:55B5:DB16:A758:A7D5 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]