Dec 2019 Nature (Scientific reports) 

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

Nature Scientific Report is their outlet for crackpots, unfortunately.

Phantasists?

Dec 2019 Nature (Scientific reports) 

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

Nature Scientific Report is their outlet for crackpots, unfortunately.

Speaking of outlets, I just discovered a few days ago viXra.org. While there may be some legitimate stuff there, a few samples I looked at were quite strange. For example, you see people posting lengthy articles daily or even multiple times a day. 

Is this where list went?

Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

I had to look that one up: Peeler.

Dec 2019 Nature (Scientific reports) 

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

Nature Scientific Report is their outlet for crackpots, unfortunately.

Speaking of outlets, I just discovered a few days ago viXra.org. While there may be some legitimate stuff there, a few samples I looked at were quite strange. For example, you see people posting lengthy articles daily or even multiple times a day. 

They don't know their arx from their elbow.

Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

Same DNA pool. 

Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

I had to look that one up: Peeler.

Ah yes, the drunken peelers holding up the Penal Laws.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4OBDtbdUz8

"With this all in place, if the single gravitating atom demonstrates the key ingredient needed for quantum computation, which is curiously associated with "negative probability," nature must take the quantum gravity approach."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210217151017.htm

why not simply think that the model has the wrong foundation...

Pile of nonsense. They are talking about Wigner functions, not probability, obviously.

In BEC, the temperatures are so low that electrons in the crystal lattice move very slowly. This increases their de Broglie wavelengths and thus the wave-like nature starts to dominate (over the particle nature). It causes a funny effect of the formation of so-called Cooper pair: electron  which seem to attract each other (rather than repel because of Coulomb interaction). It happens when one electron and the positive ions of the crystal lattice attract, and this attraction distorts the crystal lattice - they ions sort of gather a bit closer to that electron. Such an accumulation of positive charge attracts another nearby electron (I guess that's the association with gravitational field the cited "team of experts" see). It doesn't mean that the electrons or the Coulomb interaction change their physical character in any way. Simply, the electrons are far enough from each other for the Coulomb interaction to be less valid than the lattice attraction.

We had experimental and theoretical lab investigating BEC at the institute. They wouldn't give me the degree if I didn't know the theory in detail (BCS derivation was obligatory) )

I have a nagging feeling that your talents may be underutilized in your current role of cat comforter, vegetable grower, and baked goods optimizer, but it’s your utility function to manage!

How Much Do Negative Probabilities Matter in Option Pricing?: A Case of a Lattice-Based Approach for Stochastic Volatility Models

"it seems unlikely that one could exploit negative probabilities consistently as some practitioners may hope."

How Much Do Negative Probabilities Matter in Option Pricing?: A Case of a Lattice-Based Approach for Stochastic Volatility Models

"it seems unlikely that one could exploit negative probabilities consistently as some practitioners may hope."

I read this article up to and including section 3 (CIR model).
A lot of hullabaloo .. 
Lattice methods are numercal approximation based on discretisation with parameters [$]h[$] and [$]\Delta t[$]. There are constraints, otherwise we get nonsense results. The article uses some tricks to ensure well-posednes but I would avoid talking about negative probabilities (a kind of Fata Morgana) ... they are getting the run of themselves in the article.
All these numerical issues are well known in PDE/FDM, e.g. explicit schemes, monotonicity (large correlation), stability.

Extensive numerical tests show that this optimized lattice model is a reliable and robust approach for financial option valuations.
So, the model is not even wrong.

Not needed. The delta function is handled by the jump condition and never appears to the solver under my stop/re-start scheme.

The situation is different with hand-crafted PDE with delta payoff. They are generalised functions (Sobolev/Schwartz) and care is needed to avoid negativity. 
e.g. taking the pulse [$]u_0 = 1/h[$] and zero everywhere else will cause a spike with Crank Nicolson.