Editor's note (6/24/2025): While Kletetschka's theory of three-dimensional time presents an intriguing new framework, its results have not yet been accepted by the broader scientific community. The theory is still in the early stages of scrutiny and has not been published in leading physics journals or independently verified through experiments or peer-reviewed replication. Publishing in Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences (World Scientific Publishing), while a legitimate step, is not sufficient for a theory making such bold claims. This journal is relatively low-impact and niche, and its peer review does not match the rigorous scrutiny applied by top-tier journals like Physical Review Letters or Nature Physics. For a paradigm-shifting idea to gain acceptance, it must withstand critical evaluation by the wider physics community, be published in highly regarded journals, and provide reproducible predictions that align with existing evidence—standards this work has not yet met.

[–] pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.fr 1 points 40 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago) (1 children)

I'm not seeing this editor's note (at least on mobile). Where is it ?

Edit 2: never mind, found it

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

It’s at the very end of the (desktop) article, immediately following the paragraph

"The path to unification might require fundamentally reconsidering the nature of physical reality itself," he said. "This theory demonstrates how viewing time as three-dimensional can naturally resolve multiple physics puzzles through a single coherent mathematical framework."

[–] pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.fr 1 points 32 minutes ago (1 children)

Found it thanks

Why did they burry what's arguably the most important piece of information at the very end though ?

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

The “editor’s note” indicates that it’s not part of the original article—it would be misleading to insert it in the middle of the article if it wasn’t written by the attributed author.

[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

I don't know, but the thumbnail for this article looks like some AI nonsense.