Errors in Popular Science ?

[QuantumT]

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

 

[Itoero]

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 February 21, 2019 by Itoero

[peterwlocke]

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.

[swansont]

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.