244
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
244 points (100.0% liked)
Space
7242 readers
1 users here now
News and findings about our cosmos.
Subcommunity of Science
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What do you mean by this?
This can explain it better than I'm able to:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/
Sometimes popular science goes a bit too far. Entanglement of particles and the fact that hidden variables don't exist does not mean that stuff is not "real". At least I feel that is abusing the word "real".
Not following you. That's literally what they awarded the Nobel for.
Well the link you just posted says they got the prize "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science". They didn't get the prize for showing that "the universe is not locally real". That's just something the article makes up in the headline to draw readers in.
I mean I get it, it's hard to make science exciting and you need a bit of flair but I feel sometimes it goes a bit too far and kinda gives people the wrong idea.
The magazine did not make up locality lol.
In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality refers to the phenomenon by which the measurement statistics of a multipartite quantum system do not allow an interpretation with local realism.
They literally did prove, and was awarded for, showing that the universe is not locally real.
Edit. To be clearer, realism means
The word "real" and "locality" is not the same. The "lol" is unnecessary btw, there's no need to try to ridicule me.
The magazine is taking a very technical term like "realism", which means something specific in physics literature, and uses it in a headline and even just makes it "real". The word "real" and "realism" is not the same. This goes into philosophy and not so much science.
Most people will read that as if reality is an illusion or some other nonsense like that. You can't get to "the universe is not real" from what is actually said in the contents of the article.
A Wikipedia quote is not an argument btw.
EDIT to address your edit: you've hit the crux of the issue. That definition is not what most people think when they hear the word "real".
I'm sorry you seem to be refusing to understand it. The science is real, well documented, and proven. Regardless of your opinion on it. I recommend reading more into it on your own time.
I don't think it's my opinion that the article is using misleading terms in its headline. It doesn't say "realism" or "locality", it says "real", and this is misleading. Of course it wouldn't get as many views or clicks if it used the more technical terms.
I'm not a physicist but I've read and learned a lot even so and I find the article goes a little too far in the headline.
This word choice here is very ironic gotta say ๐ .
To be clear, I am not questioning the science, the contents of the article is fine. I'm saying the headline is misleading and makes people say stuff like "the universe isn't real" when that doesn't really make sense. Physicists mean something very specific and technical when they say "local realism" and this is lost in that headline.
This is a reminder to be nice on our instance. Telling someone you don't care and that they're wasting time are not productive. Just don't reply if you feel this way.
I really hope this is sarcasm. Otherwise you're promoting willful ignorance.