Breaking the laws of physics

[Philosophy Explorer]

Not a joke. PhysOrg is running this article:

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-10-quantum- ... ysics.html

I'm sure there'll be more articles on this (probably needs peer review).

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Any article which can't make the distinction between a physical law and a mathematical model of physical behaviour is spam.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Any article which can't make the distinction between a physical law and a mathematical model of physical behaviour is spam.

The article plainly says it's an experiment that was conducted in the lab which means it's physical. It further says:


"In this case, physical operations that are prohibited for the atomic world can be reproduced just as in science fiction." Sounds like they have made the distinction (with no mention of a mathematical model in the article).

I'll be awaiting a peer review.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

"In this case, physical operations that are prohibited for the atomic world can be reproduced

Let me parse this statement so that you understand my meaning.

Physical operations that are prohibited for the atomic world ACCORDING THE THE MODEL THEY ARE CURRENTLY USING TO MODEL THE ATOMIC WORLD.

There isn't a physicist in the entire world who doesn't know perfectly well that this model is false so if they are successful in their claims what they are actually doing is further falsifying their model and not achieving something which is physically impossible. The clarification is not a trivial one because that's how science works.

[Philosophy Explorer]

"In this case, physical operations that are prohibited for the atomic world can be reproduced

Let me parse this statement so that you understand my meaning.

Physical operations that are prohibited for the atomic world ACCORDING THE THE MODEL THEY ARE CURRENTLY USING TO MODEL THE ATOMIC WORLD.

There isn't a physicist in the entire world who doesn't know perfectly well that this model is false so if they are successful in their claims what they are actually doing is further falsifying their model and not achieving something which is physically impossible. The clarification is not a trivial one because that's how science works.

Bollocks,

There is no mention of a model in the article which indicates otherwise.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Have it your way. If you don't know the difference between a physical law and a physical model then you're not the only one but it's no skin off my nose.