Talk:Magic (quantum information)
Add topicLatest comment: 1 month ago by EdJohnston in topic Formal definition is cruelly lacking
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Recent expansions
[edit]I'm not qualified enough to judge it, but you either know a lot on the topic or this is pure LLM generated stuff. I can't verify it by the sources, so please discuss here before 5x expansion. Also not all sections were sourced, but that's another topic. Artem.G (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Formal definition is cruelly lacking
[edit]Physics uses the language of mathematics to define concepts rogorously. There is no such formal definition of the concept here. This is all the more disturbing that the choice of the term is really provocative for Science, and opens the door to crackpot users to make it support about any fake theory. So please qualified people, add what is needed to make the topic appear serious. ~2026-45557-95 (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- See an article from Quanta Magazine from June 2026: "Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now “Magic” Gives It Gravity." It would be good to find more mentions of this 'magic' in refereed physics journals. The concept of magic already seems to have currency in the field of quantum computing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)