> 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

▲

wasabi991011 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

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

You're a little late here, "magic" is already a fairly well known term in quantum computing literature. There's "magic states" and protocols for "magic state distillation" and "magic state injection", there's "shallow magic depth circuits", etc.

▲

SoftTalker 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had assumed it was a play on the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" but I didn't see that in the article.

▲

echelon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is any of this experimentally testable in the real world?

Would gravity or spacetime under these definitions behave differently and yield something we can observe?

Or is this fancy math modeling that looks nice on paper, but that we won't be able to test until we become a Kardashev type III civilization?

▲

MeteorMarc 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

See the end of the article, after further research quantum gravity could be simulated on a quantum computer. The links between research on quantum computing and quantum gravity are fascinating anyway!

	▲	zchrykng 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Simulating it on a computer, even a "quantum computer", is not the same as testing it against actual reality.

▲

SkyBelow 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does the model need to offer new testable hypothesis if it provides a way of explaining existing results that current models can't?

If it is competing against another model that does both that and offers new testable hypothesis (which experiments match), the other model is the clear winner. But lacking that, if no other model explains all existing data, is new testability really necessary when it is the only model that currently explains all existing tests?

That said, aren't most of theoretical models only contenders for such, as in they haven't been expanded to actually explain all testing results, only that, as far as they have been expanded, there are no contradictions yet? So they need physicists to expand them, but if the model is wrong, the effort might largely be wasted, and we have some models that there is disdain for not because they contradict existing experiments, but because they have eaten too many careers without showing value in return?

▲

api 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As far as I know it’s the latter and that’s a big problem for physics. A lot of stuff like string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc. require energies that would take a particle accelerator the diameter of the solar system or something nuts like that.

Without tests it’s just pretty math that can be coaxed into agreeing with reality but that proves nothing.

Physicists try to indirectly test all the time via cosmological observations but that is extremely hard and limited to what you can infer and how well you can eliminate other explanations or sources of error.

	▲	boutell 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I believe there was a science fiction story all the way back in the early '80s describing a scenario where physics gets reclassified as a soft science or an art form because it is no longer feasible to prove anything.

▲

stogot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

These wild ideas eventually arrive in textbooks as if they were tested, proven with none of the nuance or contradictory evidence

	▲	boutell 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Do they though? Are physics textbooks putting forward some version of string theory from the 1990s as proven fact?

▲

soco 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

▲

rockskon 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Don't underestimate the capacity for the problem to get significantly worse.

▲

CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Blame Roger Penrose for the microtubule bullshit. Ironically, he's the opposite of new age, dude won a Nobel prize.

▲

an0malous 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

Maybe, just maybe, an eminent physicist who won the Nobel Prize knows more than us. At the very least his ideas deserve consideration instead of ridicule and dismissal.

Also as far as I know, Penrose’s main argument is that consciousness can not be computational. If you can’t argue against an idea with reason and resort to name calling, you’re not being rational you’re just being dogmatic and censoring ideas.

▲

bawolff 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

	▲	an0malous 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Again, if you disagree with Penrose’s idea, just explain your disagreement. It’s so ironic how you’ll call it bullshit and link to some pop culture skeptic idea with no scientific backing to try and undermine an idea in defense of “real science” > Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. https://paulgraham.com/say.html