discuss.
Man, that's a dense paper to chew through. To add to others' points: - The devil hides in definitions. There just isn't enough scrutiny to apply, especially when a result contradicts absolute principles. - I'm no experimentalist, but measurement error or unaccounted for factor is most likely culprit. Maybe there's some material effect? Maybe something drives the effect at higher frequency and they lost it (or weren't even measuring) when going to effective potential calculation? I can shoot guessculations all night long, but this just isn't my discipline. - While it doesn't give me any 'deliberate sensationalism' vibe, the paper has very few recent publications from people unaffiliated with authors. It doesn't need to be a red flag, sometimes there just aren't more experts, but research on no level is impervious to something akin to an echo chamber effect. - Hell, maybe I'm ideallistic and will contradict myself here, but I think that they did all they could to justify the result and published it to have someone with fresh eyes (dis)prove it. Exciting, for sure. I just wish I could offer something more concrete.