Live data from Hacker News

The Death of Quanta Magazine

mateusaraujo.info

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#61

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…

I agree. Every magazine and newspaper leaves a stinker occasionally. It's not the end of the world. The "it's dead to me because of this one bad article" standard will leave one with no magazines and no newspapers that are worthy. More important, however, is that the OP's blog post (as I sense it), is actually mimicking hyperbolic attitude of the article it's complaining about. I suspect that Quanta is not "dead" to…

"Every magazine and newspaper leaves a stinker occasionally. It's not the end of the world."

May be not but just the same it's an overly-prevalent trend nowadays. For instance, New Scientist is notorious for hyping up stories that amount to little more than our current/general understanding of them—and or the Mag's cover stories or articles' headings are often outright misleading. New Scientist didn't do this decades ago (well, certainly not to the same extent).

Then there's the perennial problem of the sweeping statement without references or further explanation: new phenomena, complex processes etc. are just stated as if it was taken for granted that everyone already understands them in the way we understand, say, what a gram is. This is damn annoying as understanding the article hinges on actually understanding these skipped-over points.

It's not only New Scientist but others too including Quanta that engage in the practice but New Sc. is a past master at it. It seems to me the main reason for this is that the many journalists who engage in the practice don't actually understand the matter themselves and this is why they skip over such explanations (and or they're rewriting stories from press releases without first fully researching them, etc.).

Moreover, either editors are asleep at the wheel for allowing the practice and or they're under commercial pressures to print such crap—profit being more important than science news.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#62
post #52

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.

Yeah, this is how I feel when I read the actual research papers behind these sensational articles.

“Quantum teleportation achieved!”

Hmm, looks like a unitary operator was applied to a tensor product state.

“Virtual particles pop in and out of existence!”

Hmm, looks like a mathematical technique to perturbatively approximate a very large unitary operator.

“Time crystals!!!”

Cool, the unitary operator has some symmetries.

“The cat is dead and alive!”

So the state the unitary operator acts upon can be represented as a mathematically convenient linear combination of two other states. Great?

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#64

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#66

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#67

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#68

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…

Especially science magazines for the general public have a duty to be as factually correct as possible. This is not only a duty towards the general public, as they should not be deceived and deserve truthful reporting on these subjects. But it is also a duty towards the scientists, as they deserve that their results are presented fairly and accurately towards non-experts.

I have been generally impressed with quanta, as they usually try very hard (far more than most of their genre) to actually report accurately. Scientific reporting is hard, the knowledge gaps between reporter, scientists and audience are usually very large and explaining an extremely difficult concept to non-expert audience is very challenging. But this is no excuse to publish outright nonsense and to be honest publishing outright nonsense was not what I was expecting from quanta.

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#69
post #47

If anyone is looking to learn some actual physics instead of media crit, it would be worthwhile to sit down with the wikipedia pages for the AdS/CFT correspondence and the black hole information paradox. There’s a lot of things you can learn about the nature of quantum gravity. Some of it is built on assumptions about nature, of course, which leads a lot of people to assume that the enterprise is built on a house of…

Is it that hard to talk about?

A tangle in the interior of a cylinder loses information when viewed on the boundary because you lose a dimension (ie, the shadow cast by string around a light bulb as you see it on the lamp shade). You then have to allocate probabilities to pseudoknot resolutions (ie, guesses about crossings). So you end up with something that looks like continuous geometry on the inside and quantized statistics about interactions on the boundary.

Entanglement looks like taking two filaments in a plasma globe and moving one in a circle around the other. Their ribbons are now tangled. (As a 2+1-D analog.)

Re: The Death of Quanta Magazine

#70
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I seriously doubt that many of it's readers have sufficiently deep knowledge of QC to properly understand the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev model But that's the problem. Most people don't understand the underlying science, so they rely on science journalism to distill and explicate complex topics without simplifying and distorting to the point they lose any relationship with the truth. In this case, the writer has failed in th…

I'm not disputing that the Quanta article is factually deficient - although I don't have the relevant specialist knowledge to understand why. I am disputing that this marks the "death" of the magazine.

Not death of magazine. Correct.

But is the distinction between calculation and experiment really specialist knowledge?

Post reply on HN