Re:Breakthrough in the quantum transfer of information betwe...
by mablap on Friday November 11, 2016 @10:41PM
(#12936481)
you don't see it in common parlance
I think one of the factors for that is the fact that most high-level scientists learn to be cautious about the claims they make. You're much more likely so hear a layman make strong claims about X or Y than you are to hear the same from a PhD physicst, on average.What a lot of people who didn't go through the grinder of Academia seem not to understand, is that when one says "I don't know", it doesn't mean "I know nothing about this". If I say "I don't know", chances are I could discuss the subject at length, but my comprehension is not satisfactory to answer the question on a deep level, or I don't really grok the subject enough to feel confident to give my opinion. This is less present in laymen and can lead to some friction in discussions.
2. Physicists are always happy to consider all sorts of theories. Problem is that any new theory must also retrodict all known experimental results as well as make new predictions. The reason you don't see better theories than QM is that we physicists have failed to be creative enough to think of a theory that is better than QM at prediciting experimental results. When we do, or when you tell us a precisely defined mathematical model of reality that is better than QM at predicting reality, we will throw away QM like a burning brand and hop onto the philosophical bandwagon of the new theory.