Register to reply

The End of Realism?

by dm4b
Tags: realism
Share this thread:
dm4b
#1
Jan30-12, 12:27 PM
P: 317
I came across an article from 2007 talking about some experiemtns that are an extension of the experiments which originally tested for Bell's Inequality. These tests were supposedly designed to relax the locality requirements and test soley for realism. I'll quote a few pertinent sections:

" Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it "

"Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. "

"They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it."

I had some questions on the next quote here:

"However, Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team's philosophical conclusions are subjective. "There are other types of non-local models that are not addressed by either Leggett's inequalities or the experiment," he said."

I'm curious if anybody knows what other non-local models he is referencing? And, have these been able to be tested since 2007? What's the latest and greatest on all this?

Either way, I agree with Alain Aspect when he says at the end of this article:

"But, I rather share the view that such debates, and accompanying experiments such as those by [the Austrian team], allow us to look deeper into the mysteries of quantum mechanics."

Entire article:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
IHEP in China has ambitions for Higgs factory
The physics of lead guitar playing
The birth of topological spintronics
StevieTNZ
#2
Jan30-12, 01:35 PM
PF Gold
StevieTNZ's Avatar
P: 795
The non-local hidden variable theory that wasn't ruled out is Bohm Mechanics. No experiment has ruled this theory out.
dm4b
#3
Jan30-12, 01:40 PM
P: 317
I wasn't aware of that. I liked some of Bohm's ideas on a conceptual level, but I thought his theory either had mathematical inconsistencies or was incomplete?

Perhaps, I was mistaken, though.

StevieTNZ
#4
Jan30-12, 03:33 PM
PF Gold
StevieTNZ's Avatar
P: 795
The End of Realism?

Quote Quote by dm4b View Post
I wasn't aware of that. I liked some of Bohm's ideas on a conceptual level, but I thought his theory either had mathematical inconsistencies or was incomplete?
As far as I'm aware, that isn't the case. There are still papers being published that rule out Bohm Mechanics if you agree the experimenter has free-will, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5173

Also: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0133
dm4b
#5
Jan30-12, 06:49 PM
P: 317
Interesting, I'll have to read through those. Thanks!
bhobba
#6
Jan30-12, 06:58 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,473
Quote Quote by StevieTNZ View Post
The non-local hidden variable theory that wasn't ruled out is Bohm Mechanics. No experiment has ruled this theory out.
I beg to differ. Don't know about the free will thing mentioned later by StevieTNZ - but here is another paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206196v1.pdf

It doesn't seem to depend on free will.

Thanks
Bill
StevieTNZ
#7
Jan30-12, 08:08 PM
PF Gold
StevieTNZ's Avatar
P: 795
Quote Quote by bhobba View Post
I beg to differ. Don't know about the free will thing mentioned later by StevieTNZ - but here is another paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206196v1.pdf

It doesn't seem to depend on free will.

Thanks
Bill
Thanks for that paper. I shall read it. Wasn't aware it existed.
questionpost
#8
Jan30-12, 08:10 PM
P: 198
How does ruling out "hidden variables" mean there's no realism? Of course things stop at a certain point, that doesn't mean they aren't built upon in a logical manner...
Unless they are confusing realism for detirminism?
And if matter didn't stop after a certain point, wouldn't that imply there are infinite hidden variables and therefore it would be impossible to determine anything anyway?
How did the conditions for life to form even come to be if there wasn't an existence before us?
akhmeteli
#9
Jan30-12, 09:21 PM
P: 588
Quote Quote by bhobba View Post
I beg to differ. Don't know about the free will thing mentioned later by StevieTNZ - but here is another paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206196v1.pdf

It doesn't seem to depend on free will.
If you imply that dBB was ruled out experimentally, such implication seems dubious: Zeh (Physics Letters A, Volume 309, Issues 5–6, 31 March 2003, Pages 329–334 ) made this comment on the article you quoted: "Variants of Bohm's theory with photon trajectories instead of time-dependent Maxwell fields have recently been claimed to be in conflict with quantum theory and experiments [11]. While the analysis of these experiments appears doubtful, this modified Bohm theory—in contrast to the original one—seems to have never been proven equivalent to quantum theory."
Ken G
#10
Jan30-12, 10:19 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,080
Quote Quote by questionpost View Post
How does ruling out "hidden variables" mean there's no realism?
You can't really expect an accurate rendition of what realism is from a pop sci article, that's the problem. The term means many different things in different contexts, but in this context, it seems to be associated with "independence from observation." In other words, realism is the belief that reality exists independently of how humans tinker with it and understand it. But that term never meant anything in science, because science is all about tinkering with nature and trying to understand it, and everything that science regards as real stems exactly from that process. Relevant here is the Bohr/Einstein debates, where Bohr said that reality is only what we can demonstrate (the positivist approach) while Einstein said that "the Moon is there even when we are not looking at it." What it comes down to is, when we say a system has a set of attributes or properties, should we regard those attributes and properties as things the system really possesses, or should we regard them as tools we are using to understand the system?

Realism says that the system would have no idea what to do if it did not have those attributes and properties, but the anti-realist says that the system has no idea what we mean by attributes and properties, they are all our creations and the system does whatever it does just fine without them, we merely imagine the system has them to help us understand that system. The key point in quantum mechanics is that if we adopt the realist approach, we are always looking for hidden variables to be those attributes and properties, but if we adopt the anti-realist approach, we don't expect that the system needs any hidden variables in order to do the things it does.

How did the conditions for life to form even come to be if there wasn't an existence before us?
This is more a misconception from the pop sci article than the actual issue. If we end up deciding that QM is incompatible with realism, it means that no hidden variable theory that we can stomach will ever be able to recover its predictions. That in turn would mean that quantum systems don't do what they do because of attributes or properties, they just do what they do, and we use attributes and properties to get a good but still incomplete understanding. None of that implies that nothing could exist before there were humans, it just means that we didn't understand quantum systems before there was quantum mechanics, and we might never understand them completely because we like to think about attributes and properties.
StevieTNZ
#11
Jan30-12, 10:31 PM
PF Gold
StevieTNZ's Avatar
P: 795
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
If you imply that dBB was ruled out experimentally, such implication seems dubious: Zeh (Physics Letters A, Volume 309, Issues 5–6, 31 March 2003, Pages 329–334 ) made this comment on the article you quoted: "Variants of Bohm's theory with photon trajectories instead of time-dependent Maxwell fields have recently been claimed to be in conflict with quantum theory and experiments [11]. While the analysis of these experiments appears doubtful, this modified Bohm theory—in contrast to the original one—seems to have never been proven equivalent to quantum theory."
Was just about to post this comment!

The reference [11] is the article mentioned by bhobba.

I came across this article: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/128/1/012017
questionpost
#12
Jan30-12, 10:34 PM
P: 198
Quote Quote by Ken G View Post

This is more a misconception from the pop sci article than the actual issue. If we end up deciding that QM is incompatible with realism, it means that no hidden variable theory that we can stomach will ever be able to recover its predictions. That in turn would mean that quantum systems don't do what they do because of attributes or properties, they just do what they do, and we use attributes and properties to get a good but still incomplete understanding. None of that implies that nothing could exist before there were humans, it just means that we didn't understand quantum systems before there was quantum mechanics, and we might never understand them completely because we like to think about attributes and properties.
What? That's it? I even thought people thought of that like over a quarter of a century ago. It seemed more obvious even to me that after a certain point in the quantum level that things happen for no predictable reason.
Also, if there was actually a reason for everything, would that mean we would have to calculate infinite variables since there wouldn't be an "end" or "limit" to how indepthly these attributes go? As in, an atom would be infinitely complex if there were always hidden variables and thus even then we could never get accurate predictions?
bhobba
#13
Jan31-12, 12:08 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,473
Quote Quote by questionpost View Post
How does ruling out "hidden variables" mean there's no realism?
It doesn't - it is possible that a Quantum State exists out there in reality like say an electric field does and wave-function collapse happens by some kind of decoherence process. Trouble is, as far as I know, it hasn't been shown to resolve all the issues. So IMHO realism is still possible - but more work needs to be done. Personally I don't believe a quantum state exists like that.

Thanks
Bill
Demystifier
#14
Jan31-12, 04:43 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,569
Quote Quote by bhobba View Post
I beg to differ. Don't know about the free will thing mentioned later by StevieTNZ - but here is another paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0206196v1.pdf

It doesn't seem to depend on free will.
That paper does not rule out Bohmian mechanics. Instead, it rules out an incorrect interpretation of Bohmian mechanics. See e.g. the first two paragraphs of
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0305131
and the published references therein.
Demystifier
#15
Jan31-12, 04:53 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,569
Quote Quote by StevieTNZ View Post
As far as I'm aware, that isn't the case. There are still papers being published that rule out Bohm Mechanics if you agree the experimenter has free-will, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5173
That paper does not rule out Bohmian mechanics, because that paper assumes a form of locality (called "non-signalling condition" in the paper) similar to locality in the Bell theorem. In v3 version of the paper, you can see that on page 12, section "REMARKS ON THE NOTION OF LOCALITY". Bohmian mechanics does not obey this locality condition, so is compatible with the results of that paper.
Demystifier
#16
Jan31-12, 05:02 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,569
Quote Quote by dm4b View Post
I came across an article from 2007 talking about some experiemtns that are an extension of the experiments which originally tested for Bell's Inequality. These tests were supposedly designed to relax the locality requirements and test soley for realism. I'll quote a few pertinent sections:

" Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it "
That "broad class of hidden variables" which are ruled out are actually non-contextual hidden variables. Bohmian hidden variables are contextual, so do not belong to that class. Indeed, Zeilinger et al say explicitly in their original paper that Bohmian mechanics is not ruled out by their results.
bhobba
#17
Jan31-12, 05:08 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,473
Quote Quote by questionpost View Post
What? That's it? I even thought people thought of that like over a quarter of a century ago. It seemed more obvious even to me that after a certain point in the quantum level that things happen for no predictable reason.
We know that an observation gives a result with 100% certainty - its just we can't predict what that result is. That could be because of some kind of chaotic behavior that in principle is perfectly predictable but in practice cant be - but then again maybe not - we simply do not know.

Quote Quote by questionpost View Post
Also, if there was actually a reason for everything, would that mean we would have to calculate infinite variables since there wouldn't be an "end" or "limit" to how indepthly these attributes go? As in, an atom would be infinitely complex if there were always hidden variables and thus even then we could never get accurate predictions?
If we had a theory of everything where everything happens for a reason that does not lead to any problems or infinite regress as far as I can see.

Thanks
Bill
Demystifier
#18
Jan31-12, 05:12 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,569
Quote Quote by StevieTNZ View Post
Bohmian mechanics has the same measurable predictions as standard QM, PROVIDED THAT THE DEGREES OF FREEDOM OF THE MEASURING APPARATUS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. This paper does not take into account the degrees of freedom of the measuring apparatus, so does not rule out Bohmian mechanics.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Catenary- Realism Advanced Physics Homework 3
Macroscopic Realism Quantum Physics 84
Why ethical realism is true General Discussion 86
Moral Realism General Discussion 17
Path Integral that is valid for a Particle Quantum Physics 2