Entangled terminology leads to confusion

"Brain 'entanglement' could explain memories"[New Scientist] is a bit of a hyperbolic title. Oh, what's in a title, you ask. Quite a lot. For instance, you can be mislead into thinking that there is a connection between quantum entanglement and the phenomenon of human memory. Aforementioned New Scientist article co-opts quantum mechanics terms for a neurological process (which is fine in itself, of course.) However, neural firing described in the article has nothing to do with quantum entanglement--this hasn't been made clear (in fact, the opposite seems to have been done with phrases like "spooky action at a distance").

Sometimes mixed terminology can lead to confusion about the fundamental scientific principles. In this case, it is best to clarify or perhaps even avoid sensationalizing the title with borrowed terms.

More like this

Scientific American has an article by David Albert and Rivka Galchen with the New Scientist-ish headline Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity and the sub-head "En
One of the things that made me very leery of the whole Brian Cox electron business was the way that he seemed to be justifying dramatic claims through dramatic handwaving: "Moving an electron here changes
Enough slagging of beloved popularizers-- how about some hard-core physics.
There have been a bunch of stories recently talking about quantum effects at room temperature-- one, about coherent transport in photosynthesis , even escaped the science blogosphere.