I got through page 11 before loosing the plot, and it seems to be a very light mathematical treatment of the subject. More of a "what if we thought about it this way?" then a "here's the proof" type paper.
Yes, exactly. That's why it's worth talking about in the first place.
I wasn't downplaying the paper, just observing what I could about the current strength of its claims. It's more of a Gedankenexperiment with some guiding equations, which it seems the author stated as his intent in the nytimes article.
> You see articles stating that something broke the
> laws of physics when really it just didn't fit our
> current model of understanding.
It 'broke the law' in so much as it proved that the law was a 'broken' law (aka incomplete). It wasn't an action that violated a law, but a law that was rendered 'broken' by an action.
