I find WSJ's coverage of physics is generally bad. I don't have super concrete examples, but most WSJ quantum articles I read jump right into misconceptions or generalizations to the point of false statements, or are so vague and unnecessary there are not false (or true) statements to be found because it just uses the word quantum a lot and doesn't say anything.
While new applications are of course nice, I think many would get some real peace of mind if we finally managed to understand quantum physics. At least those that were never satisfied by »Shut up and calculate!« I wonder if this would be a revolution or more or less inconsequential for all practical purposes.
http://archive.is/Lkwz3
I find WSJ's coverage of physics is generally bad. I don't have super concrete examples, but most WSJ quantum articles I read jump right into misconceptions or generalizations to the point of false statements, or are so vague and unnecessary there are not false (or true) statements to be found because it just uses the word quantum a lot and doesn't say anything.
The author won the Nobel Prize in physics.
For this, the article is pretty shallow. I noticed the author, dug into the article and was disappointed.
That's a different issue though.
While new applications are of course nice, I think many would get some real peace of mind if we finally managed to understand quantum physics. At least those that were never satisfied by »Shut up and calculate!« I wonder if this would be a revolution or more or less inconsequential for all practical purposes.