Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

(quantamagazine.org)

26 points | by rbanffy 2 hours ago

6 comments

  • Terr_ 1 hour ago
    > a measure of quantumness known as “magic.”

    This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line...

    > They had worked out a way of running software on a classical computer that would mimic a quantum task.

    When it comes to using a regular computer to mimic (read: fake) the execution of an exotic program/API for nonexistnet future hardware, I highly recommend the humorously titled talk: "Temporally Quaquaversal Virtual Nanomachine Programming In Multiple Topologically Connected Quantum-Relativistic Parallel Timespaces... Made Easy!" [0][1]

    [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzTjPx4NIiM

    [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpInOI4o2LY

    • soco 1 hour ago
      > This naming-proposal couldn't possibly cause any problems down the line...

      Your worries are a bit late, there's already a huge amount of new age conspiracy bull about quantum healing with wave function collapse, microtubule alignment and biophotons - quality all-you-can-eat word salad buffet.

  • lioeters 1 hour ago
    Charm, quark, colors, time crystals, holographs.. And now, magic. Don't worry Einstein, no spooky action at a distance here, it's just magical.

    > The more non-Clifford gates you need to produce a quantum state, the more magical that state is. The group found that the particles were highly magical. ..They showed that magic gave space its springiness. Magic, in other words, is connected to space’s ability to bend.

    At some point these physicists crossed over into a very specialized form of poetry, a game of language.

    • themgt 12 minutes ago
      You can just call it second stabilizer Rényi entropy or non-stabilizerness if you find "magic" strange and prose is more your flavor than poetry.
    • dabiged 1 hour ago
      Don't forget snap, crackle and pop, and quantum teleportation.

      Physicists get a failing grade for naming things.

      • yubblegum 16 minutes ago
        You mean post quantum, theoretical physics. Up to 19th and early 20th, physicists somehow knew how to name things. It is possible that the nature of the beast itself has changed and it attracts a different kind of mindsets ...
    • etiam 58 minutes ago
      I can sort of appreciate these shenanigans as short-lived common room humor, but I find it obnoxious to put it in the official terminology.

      It's bad enough all the corporations trying to steal perfectly active words for their brand names or products.

    • mr_mitm 40 minutes ago
      Ghosts are also a thing in quantum field theory
      • setopt 11 minutes ago
        And slavery, unfortunately. (Slave variables, slave bosons, etc.)
    • tuyiown 36 minutes ago
      we had "god particle" too …
      • setopt 13 minutes ago
        To be fair, that one came from an editor not a physicist; the physicist wanted to call their book «the goddamn particle», and it got censored/editorialized to «the god particle».
  • apothegm 18 minutes ago
    That is an incredibly unfortunate term to use for the phenomenon.
  • hirako2000 38 minutes ago
    In absolute, those are irrevocably pliable scientific facts.
  • sigmoid10 1 hour ago
    >In holographic theories, physicists may have traced the pliability of space-time to its quantum roots

    ...ah yes holography again. Not to say that all these insights from it are completely worthless, but unless we actually find a holographic dual of our universe instead of AdS spaces (which are the opposite of our universe if anything), this whole field is starting to feel more like a jobs program for mathematicians out of new ideas.

    • dwroberts 35 minutes ago
      > this whole field is starting to feel more like a jobs program for mathematicians out of new ideas.

      So sick of seeing phrases like this.

      Science is not business. It is not about producing results that you personally think are important. It is understanding the nature of the universe for the sake of it.

  • tetrisgm 1 hour ago
    I gotta say every aspect of this headline reads like bullshit. Unfortunately
    • yxhuvud 24 minutes ago
      Not just the headline. Is it possible to take any scientist talking about something they term as magic seriously?