Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#54009 06/18/15 03:57 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
This is an example of trash glossy science media garbage articles and someone actually correcting it.

The article appeared several places
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-einstein-quantum-cat.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150616102353.htm

Sabine Hossenfelder who has at times struggled with the basics to me actually managed to work it out and correctly identify the paper is complete garbage. She even correctly identifies one of the two main obvious problems with this paper, for a challenge see if you can identify the obvious second one. I can't wait for someone like Lubos response if he spots this

http://backreaction.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/no-gravity-hasnt-killed-schrodingers-cat.html

Someone could have pointed out that this trash is almost instantly falsified by the first macro entanglement ever created way back in 2010 and we have done thousands of macro entanglements since

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object

These experiments are done here on earth and apparently gravity alone is supposed to wipe out the entanglement by time dilation ... so one may ask why isn't it then? That was the shock to many when these experiments results were first published.

So I guess my view is the same as Sabine Hossenfelder that this is a 2 year old trash paper that you really wonder how it ever got a writeup in any good science magazine. At a very minimum they needed to deal with the obvious falisification with experimental results.

Last edited by Orac; 06/18/15 04:00 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Orac #54021 06/22/15 07:45 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Haha Lubos saw the articles smile

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/sitting-and-experiencing-gravitational.html#more

If you didn't work it out he got the second obvious flaw that they neglected the secondary interactions to the heat bath laugh

What they did prove if you make stupid wrong assumptions you get stupid wrong answers and you would hope as scientists they recognize the problem ... lets hope that are like our little Polish mate smile

If you want a real laugh Lee Smolin has put a new paper out smile
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.02938v1.pdf

Last edited by Orac; 06/22/15 07:51 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5