A new theorem tells us not if but gives us a list of ways we may be wrong!

[Jarhyn]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theorem-maps-out-the-limits-of-quantum-physics-20201203/

So, to sum up the article as I understand it, there is a series of observations that may be made in some way, involving the destruction of a memory state, which show that either the idea of locality is wrong (that the speed of light is actually a speed of all interaction), the idea that we can actually do the experiment is false, or that there are objective differences between certain subjective views, according to the new theorem.

Now, these are all very interesting ideas, and it looks like we may have to soon give one of them up!

 

[skepticalbip]

Writing understandable popular science articles about quantum mechanics is a rather futile exercise. It is futile because, although QM is well understood mathematically, a description that makes intuitive sense in our macro world is illusive, possibly unattainable. The Copenhagen interpretation was one attempt that many popular science writers tout and "woo" peddlers don't understand but seem to love. However, many, many physicists reject that interpretation. Richard Feynman's response to this dilemma was, "shut up and calculate" because, although QM can be precisely dealt with mathematically, it can't (yet) be explained to someone who does not understand the math.

 

[Artemus]

Writing understandable popular science articles about quantum mechanics is a rather futile exercise. It is futile because, although QM is well understood mathematically, a description that makes intuitive sense in our macro world is illusive, possibly unattainable. The Copenhagen interpretation was one attempt that many popular science writers tout and "woo" peddlers don't understand but seem to love. However, many, many physicists reject that interpretation. Richard Feynman's response to this dilemma was, "shut up and calculate" because, although QM can be precisely dealt with mathematically, it can't (yet) be explained to someone who does not understand the math.

Actually the "shut up and calculate" comment was made by  N. David Mermin. (/pedantic )

 

[Swammerdami]

The paradoxes of EPR, GHZ and Bell's Theorem all disappear -- these phenomena become ordinary -- once you accept quantum retrocausality. I assume this applies to this new "paradox" as well.

A recent post at TFT linked to experiments on human precognition. Shortly after that I watched the movie Tenet. This coincidence rekindled my interest in retrocausality, which I regard as the Greatest Scientific Mystery of All Time!

I've thought of starting a thread -- "Topics in Retrocausality" -- but there are surely members far more qualified than I to start such a thread.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I know we call it "the speed of light" but what are we really measuring at a more fundamental level? For decades I've thought that our physics really doesn't understand what constitutes motion, it seems more like we're measuring shadows. I like the OP's use of the word "interaction." Are things really moving or are we observing an interaction?