Popular future physics beliefs that are completely wrong?

[Maximum7]

TL;DR Summary

Trying to make a list of all hypothetical actions in physics that are completely wrong

I was watching a video on YouTube and while the channel is very credible; it said the often-believed-erroneous-belief that quantum entanglement can allow FTL travel or communication.

I left a respectful comment saying that this is incorrect but many other people actually do believe QE is FTL. I was wondering if there are anymore “common belief” hypothetical physics things that are often cited with regards to future science that are also erroneous. It could be things that futurists say or portrayed in hard science fiction, even. What are some?

 

[Demystifier]

Time travel with a change of the past.

 

[sophiecentaur]

TL;DR Summary: Trying to make a list of all hypothetical actions in physics that are completely wrong

What are some?

This is more an engineering and social misconception but the limitation is based on Physics: The idea that colonisation of other planets will solve all our problems. There is a popular feeling that it would be much the same as wagon trains conquering' the wild west. Just a tiny bit of thought should produce the conclusion that humans are just not suited to generational timescales for altruistic projects. Just think of the reactions to the current climate problems. Deny it and we needn't take any uncomfortable action.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Haven't we covered this ground already?

 

[fresh_42]

TL;DR Summary: Trying to make a list of all hypothetical actions in physics that are completely wrong

To me, this is a description of everything except physics as we know it. It isn't even science fiction. It allows everything except the truth. Pretty arbitrary with little to no meaning at all. There is a reason we do not debunk nonsense. Discussing it by entering through the backdoor is questionable in my opinion.

Can you give an argument as to why we should discuss this?

 

[sophiecentaur]

Haven't we covered this ground already?

That criterion makes it hard to justify many of the topics in PF. People could just read old threads?
It is a problem.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, but that thread is from the same OP. If he started a discussion and it is not satisfactory, he should continue it and say why, not start a new thread and leave us to guess.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Yes, but that thread is from the same OP. If he started a discussion and it is not satisfactory, he should continue it and say why, not start a new thread and leave us to guess.

Agreed. I'm afraid that the link in your last post wouldn't work for me (it does now, of course) so I took your comments as generic. Sorry.

 

[berkeman]

There is a reason we do not debunk nonsense. Discussing it by entering through the backdoor is questionable in my opinion.

Can you give an argument as to why we should discuss this?

Haven't we covered this ground already?

Thread is done.