Jump to content

Errors in Popular Science ?


Recommended Posts

I recently stumbled over an article about weird physics facts, made for laymen by a cosmologist:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/6546462/The-10-weirdest-physics-facts-from-relativity-to-quantum-physics.html

Not being an expert of any field in science myself, I was surprised to find three errors in it. So if I can find three errors, I wonder how many there really are?!

How many errors can you find?

 

The errors I found was:

Spoiler

1: Humanity minus nuclear vacuum = Sugar cube size
2: "Many worlds" quantum interpretation as a fact
3: Visible light from black holes

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant: 300,000km a second. However, light does not always travel through a vacuum. In water, for example, photons travel at around three-quarters that speed. => No, photons always travel at c. In water, photons are repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted by water molecules. 

Spoiler

They glow, slightly, giving off light across the whole spectrum, including visible light. This radiation is called “Hawking radiation”. =>Hawking radiation is predicted but not 'proven'.

Spoiler

A particle here can affect one on the other side of the universe, instantaneously => This is also predicted but not proven. (obviously)

 

Edited by Itoero
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 2/21/2019 at 12:47 PM, QuantumT said:

I recently stumbled over an article about weird physics facts, made for laymen by a cosmologist:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/6546462/The-10-weirdest-physics-facts-from-relativity-to-quantum-physics.html

Not being an expert of any field in science myself, I was surprised to find three errors in it. So if I can find three errors, I wonder how many there really are?!

How many errors can you find?

 

The errors I found was:

  Hide contents

1: Humanity minus nuclear vacuum = Sugar cube size
2: "Many worlds" quantum interpretation as a fact
3: Visible light from black holes

 

there were a few I saw that I was not one hundo on but I did not read the whole thing but the Schrodinger thing is meant to disprove it. honestly, it kind of reminds me of me a person who wants to sound smart but does not know all the facts/does little research.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2019 at 3:47 PM, QuantumT said:

I recently stumbled over an article about weird physics facts, made for laymen by a cosmologist:

As noted in the article, it was written by a non-scientist who consulted a cosmologist.

“The humanities-graduate writer of this piece would like to stress that this is his work, so any glaring factual errors he has included are his own as well.”

Yeah, and it gets a lot wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.