Quantum physics study shows future events can affect the past.

[barbos]

I think they do agree with you, but I also think they are trying to say one thing in addition. At what point does the pathway between A and B need to be in place in order for the particle to get from A to B. They seem to be saying that the pathway can be put into place remarkably late. In fact, the pathway can be put into place so late, if the particle were behaving according to Newtonian physics, the pathway would have been too late for the particle to follow it. But because the particle obeys quantum physics, it can still follow the pathway.

If that was the point then it isn't new. Schrodinger and Heisenberg pretty much explained that in quite a bit of detail with their probability distribution function and uncertainty principle. Quantum events aren't Newtonian.

I read that Schrodinger was not really much into "interpretation" part of QM. Bohr was mainly responsible for QM "interpretation". And what he said still stands

 

[skepticalbip]

If that was the point then it isn't new. Schrodinger and Heisenberg pretty much explained that in quite a bit of detail with their probability distribution function and uncertainty principle. Quantum events aren't Newtonian.

I read that Schrodinger was not really much into "interpretation" part of QM. Bohr was mainly responsible for QM "interpretation". And what he said still stands

That is my understanding too. Schrodinger's explanation I was referring to was his wave function, purely mathematical. Although both Heisenberg and Bohr were big on interpretation. I lean more to Schrodinger's approach that seems to be coming back, "shut up and calculate".

 

[barbos]

I read that Schrodinger was not really much into "interpretation" part of QM. Bohr was mainly responsible for QM "interpretation". And what he said still stands

That is my understanding too. Schrodinger's explanation I was referring to was his wave function, purely mathematical. Although both Heisenberg and Bohr were big on interpretation. I lean more to Schrodinger's approach that seems to be coming back, "shut up and calculate".

Well, Bohr's interpretation is essentially more refined "shut up and calculate".
I myself is Many Worlds guy.

 

[Artemus]

But if they agree with me then they should not have published it.

This result is encouraging for current work towards entanglement and Bell’s theorem tests in macroscopic systems of massive particles (emphasis added).

They have demonstrated that QM holds under new conditions. Testing and retesting theories under all varieties of conditions is a critical part of science. They most definitely should have published. Just ignore the sensationalism in the popular press.