Does Moon exist if you don't look at it?

[lightarrow]

From NewScientists 23 june 2007 "RealityCheck":

[...]

<<What they found(*) is that Leggett's formula is violated as well: even if you allow for instantaneous influences, quantum measurements do not fit with the idea of an objective reality. This is surprising because you might expect that, once any spooky "non-local" action is allowed, you could account for almost any relationship between two particles, and there would be no reason to ditch our concepts of reality. "This is not the case", says Aspelmeyer.

Although some loopholes remain - not all non-local models have been ruled out - we now have to face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure.
In other words, measuring those properties is what brings them into existence. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality", says quantum researcher Vlatko Vedral of the university of Leeds, UK.>>


(*) It refers to an experiment performed by Markus Aspelmeyer e Anton Zeilinger (Nature, vol 446, p 871) to test Leggett's formula (a variant of Bell's inequality, with the additional hypothesis that instantaneous inluences are allowed).

 

[Sojourner01]

I would say that yes, the moon very much does 'exist' - since it's made of a vast quantity of matter, each particle of which is interacting with others - and an interaction must have a locus. This counts as a 'measurement' since at that point the particle's attributes are specified and the wavefunctions of - say - two electrons are collapsed by one another.

At least, that's my interpretation of quantum mechanics. It all sounds very hand-wavy to me.

 

[chroot]

Decoherence nicely solves 'paradoxes' like this. The particles that comprise the Moon are constantly interacting with photons and other particles. Furthermore, the particles constantly interact with each other. This prevents any kind of macroscopic superposition from ever occurring, which means there's no paradox.

Quantum superposition is a very difficult thing to achieve.

- Warren

 

[mgelfan]

From NewScientists 23 june 2007 "RealityCheck":

[...]

<<What they found(*) is that Leggett's formula is violated as well: even if you allow for instantaneous influences, quantum measurements do not fit with the idea of an objective reality. This is surprising because you might expect that, once any spooky "non-local" action is allowed, you could account for almost any relationship between two particles, and there would be no reason to ditch our concepts of reality. "This is not the case", says Aspelmeyer.

Although some loopholes remain - not all non-local models have been ruled out - we now have to face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure.
In other words, measuring those properties is what brings them into existence. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality", says quantum researcher Vlatko Vedral of the university of Leeds, UK.>>


(*) It refers to an experiment performed by Markus Aspelmeyer e Anton Zeilinger (Nature, vol 446, p 871) to test Leggett's formula (a variant of Bell's inequality, with the additional hypothesis that instantaneous inluences are allowed).

Quantum measurements aren't at odds with objective reality. A quantum realm, where photons, electrons, etc. exist as individual objects, is at odds with the reality our sensory experience. So, photons, electrons, etc. exist as sets of mathematical and experimental operations. Theorists and experimenters bring them into existence. They, in effect, create the reality of the quantum realm by how they choose to talk about quantum experimental phenomena.

Not so for moons and computers and other objects of our sensory experience.

Quantum phenomena don't exist independent of the operations which define them -- the act of looking at them is the act of producing them. The moon, on the other hand, is always there for anyone to see whether they choose to look or not. So, of course, the moon is there even when nobody is looking at it -- and quantum theory doesn't contradict this belief.

There have been many good suggestions by the mentors and others on this forum about how to look at quantum theory so as not to get caught up in unnecessary musings such as whether or not objects of our ordinary sensory experience exist when we're not sensing them.

One way to think of the physical world is as a hierarchy of various media, and waveforms in those media, interacting in various degrees of complexity. Our sensory experience is at a rather higher (more complex) level than more purely quantum phenomen. Qualitatively, our sensory experience involves interactions across media interfaces and between media. Whereas the more purely quantum realm, it's conjectured, must consist mostly of media whose particulate structures are unknowable as far as we're concerned. And if there is a fundamental medium that is nonparticulate and perfectly seamless and continguous (disturbances in which form the foundations for all other media and hence ultimately our sensible physical reality), then this can never be established empirically.

 

[babelbusters]

Quantum phenomena don't exist independent of the operations which define them -- the act of looking at them is the act of producing them. The moon, on the other hand, is always there for anyone to see whether they choose to look or not.

This is an example where logic is being ignored, one of my big beefs with Copenhagen Interp.

If something does not exist in an ontologically real sense PRIOR to observation, there is no observation. If your logic is correct, we have lost the meaning of the word "observation" and should stop using it at once and instead speak of "creation."

You can only affect, in a causal sense, something ontologically existing prior to. If it isn't there, then you cannot have any causal relationship to it. You cannot even speak of "producing" them, since that act would place you in a causal relationship with what was produced. But you can only exist in a causal relationship to something ALREADY there. If it isn't there, you can't have a causal influence on it. If it just appears hocus pocus, you or no one or nothing else had any effect on it in a causal sense whatsoever!

So your logic won't even allow you to say that your observing it produced it.

 

[Hans de Vries]

The article in Nature is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48376/nature05677 and
http://static.scribd.com/docs/fq91bh6p61ra1.pdf

The preprint is here:

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2529v1.pdf

Popular coverage (from New Scientist) is here:

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/06/22/2734686.htm

The paper has a pretty far going conclusion:

We have experimentally excluded a class of important non-local hidden-variable theories. In an attempt to model quantum correlations of entangled states, the theories under consideration assume realism, a source emitting classical mixtures of polarized particles (for which Malus' law is valid) and arbitrary non-local dependencies via the measurement devices. Besides their natural assumptions, the main appealing feature of these theories is that they allow us both to model perfect correlations of entangled states and to explain all existing Bell-type experiments. We believe that the experimental exclusion of this particular class indicates that any non-local extension of quantum theory has to be highly counterintuitive. For example, the concept of ensembles of particles carrying definite polarization could fail. Furthermore, one could consider the breakdown of other assumptions that are implicit in our reasoning leading to the inequality. These include Aristotelian logic, counterfactual definiteness, absence of actions into the past or a world that is not completely deterministic [30]. We believe that our results lend strong support to the view that any future extension of quantum theory that is in agreement with experiments must abandon certain features of realistic descriptions.

Leggett's non local hidden variable model is discussed in appendix 1 of the preprint.My personal opinion:

The Hidden Variable model here which is excluded by this test is,
like the Bell ones, a model were the Hidden Variables are merely input
parameters to random processes involving polarizers.

Two independent uncorrelated random processes at both sides (Bob and
Alice) can not support the conservation law tested, and therefor must
fail in experiments testing this conservation law.

Ruling out such a model is one thing, drawing very far reaching conclusions
on this is something else, especially if one can expect the failure of the
model on forehand.

In my opinion only LHV models which do not involve uncorrelated random
processes can hope to obey conservation laws.


Regards, Hans

 

[lightarrow]

My question "Does Moon exist if you don't look at it?" was intended to stimulate discussion about the NewScientists article, not in a literal sense (I believed it was obvious, but clearly it wasn't, sorry!)

 

[Proof.Beh]

Yeah, I think that if we don't see a thing then can issume it don't exist. but it is valid while we don't sense it's affects and properties. For example don't see the storm but it DESTROYS the other things in its way. Therefore the storm exists. Also in QM Does exists positron? Since we have photon then it is confirmed that positron exists. All of the statements of QM are to this form because of their existence probability and limitations for seeing.

Thanks.
Mr beh

 

[Proof.Beh]

My question "Does Moon exist if you don't look at it?" was intended to stimulate discussion about the NewScientists article, not in a literal sense (I believed it was obvious, but clearly it wasn't, sorry!)

I agree with that. But do you think that the CI is correct really? if you confirm it then we have an idea for agreement the your wrting in the CI: if we don't measure the properties of QM system then they are non-sense. And firs REQUISITE of that is seeing of QM system's components.

Thanks.
Mr Beh

 

[lightarrow]

The article in Nature is here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48376/nature05677 and
http://static.scribd.com/docs/fq91bh6p61ra1.pdf
The preprint is here:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2529v1.pdf
Popular coverage (from New Scientist) is here:
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/06/22/2734686.htm

Thank you very much Hans, I only had the NewScientists magazine.

 

[Aschere]

And what of the tides?

 

[babelbusters]

quote: "measuring those properties is what brings them into existence"

This is a logically nonsensical statement. If the "measuring" brings them into existence, then there is no measuring! There is only creating. Measuring no longer has any meaning. You are now talking about creation.

In what sense does the word "measure" have any meaning according to the accepted definition of the word in view of this statement?

To measure something PRESUMES something already existing. To say "it doesn't exist until it's measured" completely violates the logical integrity of the accepted meaning of the word "measured."

 

[lightarrow]

quote: "measuring those properties is what brings them into existence"

This is a logically nonsensical statement. If the "measuring" brings them into existence, then there is no measuring! There is only creating. Measuring no longer has any meaning. You are now talking about creation.

In what sense does the word "measure" have any meaning according to the accepted definition of the word in view of this statement?

To measure something PRESUMES something already existing. To say "it doesn't exist until it's measured" completely violates the logical integrity of the accepted meaning of the word "measured."

What you say is very important. Often physicists or others talk about " to measure" as if it was an action on something that already exist. We should talk a bit more on what exactly this actually means, in my opinion.

 

[lightarrow]

And what of the tides?

Of course the phrase "Does Moon exist if you don't look at it", was intended in allegoric sense, that is "..if you don't measure it", and didn't refer to the very moon but to microscopic objects, described by QM. My title was intended as a "poetic" reference to the results of that experiment.

 

[setAI]

Chroot's answer was perfect- observation isn't merely 'looking'- it involves all causal interaction with the observer and his local environment- therefore the state of a complex interacting world will be quite defined except for under very specific conditions where coherence is preserved- so the Moon is always there- but for example your non-interacting junk DNA might be in superposition until someone sequences it

 

[lightarrow]

Chroot's answer was perfect- observation isn't merely 'looking'- it involves all causal interaction with the observer and his local environment- therefore the state of a complex interacting world will be quite defined except for under very specific conditions where coherence is preserved- so the Moon is always there- but for example your non-interacting junk DNA might be in superposition until someone sequences it

Do I have to assume you didn't even read my post previous to your?

 

[Proof.Beh]

Chroot's answer was perfect- observation isn't merely 'looking'- it involves all causal interaction with the observer and his local environment- therefore the state of a complex interacting world will be quite defined except for under very specific conditions where coherence is preserved- so the Moon is always there- but for example your non-interacting junk DNA might be in superposition until someone sequences it

What is your purpose from posting of the #15 in this thread?

 

[pawelsobko]

My personal opinion:

The Hidden Variable model here which is excluded by this test is,
like the Bell ones, a model were the Hidden Variables are merely input
parameters to random processes involving polarizers.

Two independent uncorrelated random processes at both sides (Bob and
Alice) can not support the conservation law tested, and therefor must
fail in experiments testing this conservation law.

Ruling out such a model is one thing, drawing very far reaching conclusions
on this is something else, especially if one can expect the failure of the
model on forehand.

In my opinion only LHV models which do not involve uncorrelated random
processes can hope to obey conservation laws.


Regards, Hans

Assuming that the experiment is good (it looks nice, both setup and results) then the possible candidates to question are counterfactual definiteness and absence of actions into the past. Especially the latter - as I think a lot remains to be understood with respect to time in QM.

 

[setAI]

Do I have to assume you didn't even read my post previous to your?

no I didn't- I just glanced at the thread and saw chroot's responnse- then gave it a +1