Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Death of Quanta Magazine

mateusaraujo.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 81 posts

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#51

Post by oh_my_goodness »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #2

Not the actual death of the magazine, just someone getting upset about lack of depth in an article. Specifically: > "No, scientists haven’t created a wormhole using a quantum computer. They haven’t even simulated one. They simulated some aspects of wormhole dynamics under the crucial assumption that the holographic correspondence of the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model holds." Quanta publishes great, detailed articles - but i…

Please don't misrepresent the OP. The writer does not say he is "upset about lack of depth". His claim is that the Quantum article contains wildly false information.

Specifically, he claims a simulation was presented as an experiment.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#52

Post by 323 »

All popular articles about quantum physics are in a way bullshit, false and misrepresentation.

Because the only way to accurately talk about quantum physics is to show the math and only talk about that. The famous "shut up and calculate".

You can't have it both ways, you either accept gross misrepresentations in the popular science press, or you just don't have popular science press.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#53

Post by ergonaught »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #2

Not the actual death of the magazine, just someone getting upset about lack of depth in an article. Specifically: > "No, scientists haven’t created a wormhole using a quantum computer. They haven’t even simulated one. They simulated some aspects of wormhole dynamics under the crucial assumption that the holographic correspondence of the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model holds." Quanta publishes great, detailed articles - but i…

“It falls so far below any journalistic standard that the magazine is dead to me.”

Author explains the “death” in the fifth sentence of the opening paragraph.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#54

Post by poulpy123 »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #2

Not the actual death of the magazine, just someone getting upset about lack of depth in an article. Specifically: > "No, scientists haven’t created a wormhole using a quantum computer. They haven’t even simulated one. They simulated some aspects of wormhole dynamics under the crucial assumption that the holographic correspondence of the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model holds." Quanta publishes great, detailed articles - but i…

Nobody (not even me) cares about the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model except a handful of scientists.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#55

Post by okintheory »

I agree it's rather sad to see such an over-the-top presentation in Quanta. Staying more grounded would definitely serve their longer term credibility.

Perhaps surprisingly, NYTimes did better this time: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/science/physics-wormhole-...

They quote Scott Aaronson:

“The most important thing I’d want New York Times readers to understand is this,” Scott Aaronson, a quantum computing expert at the University of Texas in Austin, wrote in an email. “If this experiment has brought a wormhole into actual physical existence, then a strong case could be made that you, too, bring a wormhole into actual physical existence every time you sketch one with pen and paper.”

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#56

Post by green_on_black »

iNic wrote: post #48

As a mathematician I can say that all math articles I have read so far in Quanta Magazine have been excellent and they deserve praise! This one article might have missed the mark, but the topic is inherently difficult to write about to a lay audience.

As an (ex-)physicist who did minor QC research, I'm very annoyed at the sensationalism. I do typically enjoy Quanta, their sensationalism is usually less severe, and the intuition they givd is decently aligned when I (sometimes) dive deeper.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#58

Post by FranklinMaillot »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #2

Not the actual death of the magazine, just someone getting upset about lack of depth in an article. Specifically: > "No, scientists haven’t created a wormhole using a quantum computer. They haven’t even simulated one. They simulated some aspects of wormhole dynamics under the crucial assumption that the holographic correspondence of the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model holds." Quanta publishes great, detailed articles - but i…

Blogpost uses clickbait and overblown reaction to complain about clickbait and overblown reporting.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#59

Post by talkingtab »

I am beginning to think that advertising is the most toxic element of our environment. Click bait is a way to present something that makes it impossible not to ignore. "Biden and Trump Get Into Food Fight at Restaurant". Behind the click bait is so often lies, deception or garbage, that our brains now conclude that anything behind click bait is trash.

If advertising is your business model, then you can make more money with click-baitization. Here's looking at you WAPO and NYT.

If, with good reason, we cannot trust the supposed sources of good information, even HN, then our ability to build common understandings and actions is destroyed. Why, it is almost like our political system would be destroyed.

If you want to destroy an ant colony, the simplest method is just to prevent interfere with the mechanisms they use to collaborate. Single ants, even mobs of ants cannot survive. Of course we are not ants and we can survive even when our systems of collaboration are destroyed.

(fixed phrasing in edit)

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#60

Post by VLM »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #13

>The problem is, if they write such bullshit about topics that I do understand, how can I trust their reporting on topics that I do not? Funny how this is true for basically all of science and yet so many popsci authors get away with it, because the vast majority of the audience will not be experts in the field. If you want the true story you'll always have to read the original paper (though sometimes even Nature let…

Magazines are for showing off ones political or philosophical affiliations, not to be informative.
Post reply on HN