4 ms·

Non-newtonian physics is by far the weakest of the hard sciences but as I understand it "[spooky] action at a distance" has a formal meaning[1] in particle phys

Non-newtonian physics is by far the weakest of the hard sciences but as I understand it "[spooky] action at a distance" has a formal meaning[1] in particle physics that has to do with quantum entanglement. Here's the NIST article on the substantial findings that lends credence spooky action specifically[2]. (I'd imagine the physics stackexchange will have a great discussion on this, and the AskScience on Reddit will have a thread approachable for people who aren't Leonard Susskind or his coterie of brilliant post-docs.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance [2] http://www.nist.gov/pml/div686/20151105loophole.cfm http://www.nist.gov/pml/div686/20151105loophole.cfm

wyager 10y ago
> Non-newtonian physics is by far the weakest of the hard sciences This assertion is ridiculous. The only fields "harder" (in the scientific sense) than modern physics are pure math fields. High-level physics is almost pure math anyway; much of it is abstract algebra and topology. That's not to say it's divorced from reality; reality seems to like using these principles under the hood. The "soft" stuff you are talking about isn't modern physics; it's people taking (mostly uninformed) potshot guesses at how to interpret the hard results that modern physics offers. Within the physics community, these discussions are much more muted, because it's clear that the answers to physics questions won't come out of philosophical pontificating. Physicists figure out which interpretations are compatible with experimentally verified theory, and then look for additional consequences of these interpretations that can be tested. Right now there are a number of plausible explanations of the observations of quantum mechanics, each with their own (often psychologically uncomfortable) way of dealing with its conclusions. It's rare to come across a physicist that is strongly convinced of one interpretation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

wyager 10y ago

> Non-newtonian physics is by far the weakest of the hard sciences This assertion is ridiculous. The only fields "harder" (in the scientific sense) than modern physics are pure math fields. High-level physics is almost pure math anyway; much of it is abstract algebra and topology. That's not to say it's divorced from reality; reality seems to like using these principles under the hood. The "soft" stuff you are talking about isn't modern physics; it's people taking (mostly uninformed) potshot guesses at how to interpret the hard results that modern physics offers. Within the physics community, these discussions are much more muted, because it's clear that the answers to physics questions won't come out of philosophical pontificating. Physicists figure out which interpretations are compatible with experimentally verified theory, and then look for additional consequences of these interpretations that can be tested. Right now there are a number of plausible explanations of the observations of quantum mechanics, each with their own (often psychologically uncomfortable) way of dealing with its conclusions. It's rare to come across a physicist that is strongly convinced of one interpretation.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]