Hacker News Reader

Comment by ISL | Hacker News Reader

The Nature article on the subject is considerably more informative. The research shows a curve that's not inconsistent with 'perfect'. The measured Q is about 10^6, and roughly consistent with their wavefunction model of reflection. It's an excellent Q for the substrate.

The model allows for infinite reflectance, so this work opens an interesting window into future improvements. When the reported Q passes 10^12, you'll know that they're on to something truly special. Bulletproof measurements of Qs greater than 10^5 are a challenge, so it may be a while.

This paper was the coolest thing (to me) in last week's Nature.

Paywalled links (the authors have not chosen to put it on the arXiv):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/499159a... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/nature1...

View on HN

> the authors have not chosen to put it on the arXiv

Doesn't Nature forbid authors from uploading pre-prints to the arXiv?

http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/embargo.html

Doesn't look like an explicit ban on preprints, though Nature might prefer that you not do it. I'm pretty sure I've seen a Nature paper or two appear on the arXiv around the time of publication.

"Nature does not wish to hinder communication between scientists. For that reason, different embargo guidelines apply to work that has been discussed at a conference or displayed on a preprint server and picked up by the media as a result. (Neither conference presentations nor posting on recognized preprint servers constitute prior publication.)

Our guidelines for authors and potential authors in such circumstances are clear-cut in principle: communicate with other researchers as much as you wish, but do not encourage premature publication by discussion with the press (beyond a formal presentation, if at a conference)."

Looks like they say "It's okay to talk among scientists, but don't talk with the media at all until we've released it. We'll pull your paper if you do."

Looks like you're right:

"1. You are welcome to post pre-submission versions or the original submitted version of the manuscript on a personal blog, a collaborative wiki or a preprint server at any time (but not subsequent pre-accept versions that evolve due to the editorial process)."

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/confidentiality.html

... But I can see how authors, anticipating a possible Nature publication, would choose to maximize "impact" by not jumping the gun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com