Steinhauer's rebuttal
The argument
The critique's statistical conclusion, that the correlation and population data become indistinguishable at two standard deviations, is produced by adding horizontal uncertainties to the data. Because the reanalysis assigned uncertainties to wavenumbers that were discrete and precisely determined by the Fourier transform of the images, and given the response's further charges that measured mode widths were set to zero in part of the reanalysis and that a population consistent with zero was treated as strictly zero, the critique's loss of significance is an artefact of its own method rather than a property of the data.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Leonhardt's reanalysis assigned uncertainties to wavenumbers that were discrete and precisely determined in the 2016 Technion experiment.
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.
Earlier ratings
- Sep 16, 2026
The inference goes through if the horizontal uncertainties are unjustified, since the critique's loss of significance is produced by them and by nothing else in its statistical analysis. Its weight rests on the reanalysis having assigned uncertainties to wavenumbers that were discrete and precisely determined, which is true of the Fourier grid but settles the matter only if the finite width of each grid mode is irrelevant to the comparison, a point the argument asserts rather than establishes. The companion charges about zeroed mode widths and a strictly zero population describe real features of the critique that the critique defends as deliberate modelling choices, so they sharpen the disagreement without ending it.