Quanta usually has fairly good articles, but the headlines are often very bad.
replyNot just the headline. Is it possible to take any scientist talking about something they term as magic seriously?
replyWould you prefer "non-Cliffordness"?
replyDoes using words that are more of a mouthful make scientist more credible?
Absolutely. "non-Cliffordness" by consturction already implies "Cliffordness", which by construction implies "Clifford" and then connects other related things. Magic doesn't do that exactly, but instead slips unnecessary connections. Clifford as a name relates to a matematician who was probably dead by the time anyway. It is considerably more neutral as a name and "free" of unrelated context. I am not knowledgeable about it, but I also wouldn't be suprised if Clifford works are also related to mathematical facilities in quantum theories where the name is invoked.
replyWhen trying to understand the reality and then convey that understanding, "mouthfulness" seems like not a concern at all.
> Is it possible to take any scientist talking about something they term as magic seriously?
replyObviously. Because the fact that they use this word for something modernly scientific means that its meaning is as far from the commonfolk meaning of the word as possible. Magic doesn't mean anything sensible yet. So it's basically free real estate for something physical, especially something very foundational.