Time, not space plus time, might be the single fundamental property in which all physical phenomena occur, according to a new theory by a University of Alaska Fairbanks scientist.
To its credit, the article does include a pretty thorough disclaimer:
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.
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.”
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.
How reliable is this website ? I see clickbaity headlines from it all the time around here and the Wikipedia page is mostly empty
To its credit, the article does include a pretty thorough disclaimer:
I’m not seeing this editor’s note (at least on mobile). Where is it ?
Edit 2: never mind, found it
It’s at the very end of the (desktop) article, immediately following the paragraph
Found it thanks
Why did they burry what’s arguably the most important piece of information at the very end though ?
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.
How about putting it at the top of the article, or using the dedicated “editor’s note” button they put right below the title ?
I don’t know, but the thumbnail for this article looks like some AI nonsense.