A review by a panel of 15 experts commissioned by NASA recommended against extending the data analysis phase beyond . They warned that the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community".
Publication of GP-B Special Volume (Volume #32, Issue #22) in the peer-reviewed journal, Classical and Quantum Gravity
北美老闲人 发表评论于
爱因斯坦早在1936年前就在Physical Review发表过著名的“虫洞”文章！
随后又发表了关于引力波不存在的论文。
何祈愚：PRL凭什么? 拒稿引力波预测, 爱因斯坦走下神坛! 发表于 2016 年 02 月 17 日
http://hx.cnd.org/2016/02/17/%e4%bd%95%e7%a5%88%e6%84%9a%ef%bc%9aprl%e5%87%ad%e4%bb%80%e4%b9%88-%e6%8b%92%e7%a8%bf%e5%bc%95%e5%8a%9b%e6%b3%a2%e9%a2%84%e6%b5%8b-%e7%88%b1%e5%9b%a0%e6%96%af%e5%9d%a6%e8%b5%b0%e4%b8%8b%e7%a5%9e/
'爱因斯坦此前(1936年）在Physical Review已经发表过3篇论文，包括和罗森那篇著名的虫洞文章。但这一冲突之后，他和Physical Review从此一刀两断，再也没给Physical Review写过文章。科学巨人的脾气，看起来有时候还不小！
想知道Physical Review为什么拒稿这篇文章么？ 引力波存在吗？ 不存在！ 这是爱因斯坦这篇文章的结论！
文章改头换面发表了。
那么，这篇文章又是什么命运呢？改投其他期刊呗。在这一点上，爱因斯坦和咱们今天这些攒论文的学者，也没有什么区别。他转手就将论文投给了 the Journal of the Franklin
Institute，并很快原文接受，不需修改。'
Adam Frank
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/02/16/466109612/was-einstein-wrong
Adam Frank is a co-founder of the 13.7 blog, an astrophysics professor at the University of Rochester, a book author and a self-described "evangelist of science."
"Physics offers radical new perspectives on what lies beneath, ... But for Bergson, relativity was not a theory that addressed time on its most ..."
