Measurement Rules Quantum Universe

[Rajkovic]

Is a new article, btw
June 2, 2015 Experiment Provides Further Evidence That Reality Doesn't Exist Until We Measure It
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/measurement-rules-quantum-universe
http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms

any thoughts on this?
science is still on this crap ? ('what the bleep do we know 'stuff)?
Or they are talking about that there is some "consciousness" observing the quantum world? (like the God BS?

 

[phinds]

Reality doesn't care whether we measure it or not. Do you really think the moon disappears if no one is looking? How about celestial bodies that we can't even SEE. Did they spring into existence when a human turned a telescope on them?

The fact that things at the quantum level don't have certain states defined unless measured does not mean that "Reality Doesn't Exist Until We Measure It"

 

[Rajkovic]

Yes, I know it, what I want to know, is why there are new articles about this? I thought this issue had already been solved/debunked

 

[e.bar.goum]

Remember, you're reading pop-science when you're reading these articles - they almost always misrepresent the work - the recent research done by Manning and colleagues is very much not "crap".

ETA: the paper. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3343.html It's behind the paywall, but the abstract still gives a good picture of the work.

 

[Rajkovic]

Thanks e.bar.goum and phinds

:)

 

[phinds]

Yes, I know it, what I want to know, is why there are new articles about this? I thought this issue had already been solved/debunked

as ebar said, pop science is not to be trusted. NOTHING is ever settled in pop-science if it lends itself to dramatic headlines.

 

[bhobba]

any thoughts on this?

The QM formalism is ambivalent on the issue so, unless they have made some big Nobel winning breakthrough, which is highly doubtful, its simply a popular press beat-up.

science is still on this crap ? ('what the bleep do we know 'stuff)?

That actually isn't crap. Many interpretations, including the one I hold to, ignorance ensemble, is like that. Many aren't either.

Or they are talking about that there is some "consciousness" observing the quantum world? (like the God BS?

What they are talking about is utterly trivial. QM is silent about what's going on when not observed.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Remember, you're reading pop-science when you're reading these articles - they almost always misrepresent the work - the recent research done by Manning and colleagues is very much not "crap".

Indeed that's what's going on here.

From the write up:
'The dominant model of quantum mechanics holds that it is when a measurement is taken that the “decision” takes place'

They are speaking about Copenhagen, and that's NOT what it says.

Thanks
Bill

 

[StevieTNZ]

My go-to-physics Professor said, in response to this statement on the physorg.com equivalent article regarding the same experiment:

I’m not sure I agree 100% with the rather unsophisticated ontology of the last part of this…
"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,"
…but I guess we see once again that what can be said about reality is contextual;and somehow arranged to be self-consistent within the context.

There are a few physicists (that I've encountered) who still adhere to the consciousness causes collapse view on the measurement problem, too. But they are in the minority.

 

[Blacker zero]

Reality doesn't care whether we measure it or not. Do you really think the moon disappears if no one is looking? How about celestial bodies that we can't even SEE. Did they spring into existence when a human turned a telescope on them?

The fact that things at the quantum level don't have certain states defined unless measured does not mean that "Reality Doesn't Exist Until We Measure It"

what i took out of it isn't the fact that reality isn't there unless measured, i find it more interesting the way reality interacts with the observer of reality. considering they recreated the wave~particle experiment with atoms as opposed to light just furthers the discussion of how reality is affected by an observers intention.

 

[zonde]

Remember, you're reading pop-science when you're reading these articles - they almost always misrepresent the work - the recent research done by Manning and colleagues is very much not "crap".

I does not seem you are far. Researchers are trying to sell their work and sometimes it seems their are not very honest at that. Maybe you are not seeing log in your own eye.

From phys.org article:
"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

 

[e.bar.goum]

I does not seem you are far. Researchers are trying to sell their work and sometimes it seems their are not very honest at that. Maybe you are not seeing log in your own eye.

From phys.org article:
"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

I don't think Truscott is being dishonest, just not precise. If you insert the word "classical" before "reality" it's fine. Those comments were for a media release, after all. This is why you don't take any media release or pop-sci article seriously (particularly IFLS and ScienceAlert). You will note no such statement in their paper. (The word "reality" appears twice in the article, and not in this context at all - it appears in the context of trying to ascribe classical pictures to quantum systems)

 

[zonde]

I don't think Truscott is being dishonest, just not precise. If you insert the word "classical" before "reality" it's fine. Those comments were for a media release, after all. This is why you don't take any media release or pop-sci article seriously (particularly IFLS and ScienceAlert). You will note no such statement in their paper. (The word "reality" appears twice in the article, and not in this context at all - it appears in the context of trying to ascribe classical pictures to quantum systems)

Hmm, what you are saying seems consistent with what I said.

 

[e.bar.goum]

Hmm, what you are saying seems consistent with what I said.

So what log is this in my eye, exactly?

 

[zonde]

So what log is this in my eye, exactly?

If you insert the word "classical" before "reality" it's fine.

It's "if" and no it's still not fine. A bit better maybe. And what about statement that "It proves measurement is everything."?

Those comments were for a media release, after all. This is why you don't take any media release or pop-sci article seriously

This is log in your eye. It's ok to misrepresent your own work if it's meant for general public. And fair representation of your work is behind pay wall.

You will note no such statement in their paper.

 

[Demystifier]

Reality doesn't care whether we measure it or not.

Reality doesn't care whether we say or not that "reality doesn't care whether we measure it or not".

 

[e.bar.goum]

It's "if" and no it's still not fine. A bit better maybe. And what about statement that "It proves measurement is everything."?

This is log in your eye. It's ok to misrepresent your own work if it's meant for general public. And fair representation of your work is behind pay wall.

Do you know the meaning of "log in your eye"?

I never said it was ok to misrepresent your own work, but I don't think this a case of that. I think it's a case of sloppy phrasing. These quotes aren't for people who know quantum mechanics, they're not even really for people who read phys.org, they're for anybody browsing the news. Truscott would have been asked for a one sentence explanation of the work, and it's hard to do that, be entertaining, and be totally accurate. Give him a break.

This is why you can't call the science "crap" until you've actually read the paper.

 

[bhobba]

I don't think Truscott is being dishonest, just not precise. If you insert the word "classical" before "reality" it's fine. Those comments were for a media release, after all. This is why you don't take any media release or pop-sci article seriously (particularly IFLS and ScienceAlert). You will note no such statement in their paper. (The word "reality" appears twice in the article, and not in this context at all - it appears in the context of trying to ascribe classical pictures to quantum systems)

Exactly.

I know only too well the difficulty explaining these things to those that don't know the physics - and even if you do its easy to slip into imprecision.

But to set the record straight QM is silent on if there is reality when not observed - we have interpretations with either view.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Rajkovic]

obviously there is reality when no observed

 

[DrChinese]

obviously there is reality when no observed

Just as obviously, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of this as it relates to QM. You are assuming it. That is called "tautological".

 

[StevieTNZ]

Here is a Scientific American article in which Bernard d'Espagnat expresses his view: http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

I emailed him last night to see if he still adheres to the first statement, and upon checking my emails this morning I received a reply that he had not departed from it.

I suspect this thread will derail into philosophical discussion about reality. I suggest emailing the author who said reality does not exist before measurement, to know what he actually means by it. That's what I do when I'm confused.

 

[atyy]

Here is a Scientific American article in which Bernard d'Espagnat expresses his view: http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

I emailed him last night to see if he still adheres to the first statement, and upon checking my emails this morning I received a reply that he had not departed from it.

I suspect this thread will derail into philosophical discussion about reality. I suggest emailing the author who said reality does not exist before measurement, to know what he actually means by it. That's what I do when I'm confused.

I think it will degenerate into philosophical discussion about the meaning of "first statement" :)

 

[bhobba]

obviously there is reality when no observed

In QM its not quite that obvious.

But to understand exactly how QM challenges that you need to study the actual theory.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Just as obviously, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of this as it relates to QM. You are assuming it. That is called "tautological".

Well said.

Look guys I am not into this mystical side of QM - in fact I will often carefully explain the errors in those promulgating such. However, there is no denying it, QM is a challenge to our common-sense view of the world. But please study the theory to see in exactly what way it challenges it, and what it actually implies.

Thanks
Bill

 

[StevieTNZ]

I think it will degenerate into philosophical discussion about the meaning of "first statement" :)

Yes, I think so too.

The first statement I refer to is "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." if anyone is confused as to what I was referring to.

P.S. I can't believe my previous post was my 1,000! Quite an accomplishment. :D

 

[Nick666]

any thoughts on this?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[zonde]

Do you know the meaning of "log in your eye"?

Did you meant that it's not journalists that misrepresent scientific work but it's in general hard to give popularization that fairly represents scientific work?
If it's so then my reference to "log in your eye" is surely out of place.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I suggest emailing the author who said reality does not exist before measurement, to know what he actually means by it. That's what I do when I'm confused.

I have just emailed Andrew the following:

Hi Andrew

My name is Stevie; I’m 27 and I have studied Philosophy, IT, and Classical Studies at Massey University in New Zealand, extramural. This year, however, I am taking a break from study to deal with some health concerns. My philosophical interests lie in the implications of Quantum Mechanics. I have many books on QM, both technical and intended for the layman, e.g. ‘Dance of the Photons’ by Anton Zeilinger; ‘Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards’ by GianCarlo Ghirardi; ‘Quantum Enigma’ by Bruce Rosenblum just to name a few.

I came across this physorg.com article last week -- http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html -- with the experiment you were involved in also mentioned on PhysicsForums.com -- https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/measurement-rules-quantum-universe.817094/ (I am StevieTNZ on that forum). Questions have been raised about exactly what you meant by "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it” (in particular the term reality, which is philosophical in itself). Perhaps if you can review the thread and reply to the comments in that thread you can clarify the situation in an email to me which I will post – or even join the forum and respond for yourself, if you aren’t too busy.

Many thanks for any assistance you’re able to provide.

Best regards
Stevie

 

[Rajkovic]

If observation is necessary, I'm sure has NOTHING to do with human consciousness (brain chemicals, etc).. but with "God consciousness" then, If some guys prefer to believe in this crap, good luck

 

[e.bar.goum]

If observation is necessary, I'm sure has NOTHING to do with human consciousness (brain chemicals, etc).. but with "God consciousness" then, If some guys prefer to believe in this crap, good luck

The standard opinion most physicists have is that there's no reason the universe can't observe itself - by observe, we just mean "measure". A detector can be an observer, or even a gas molecule. No "consciousness" required.

 

[zonde]

obviously there is reality when no observed

Sure, reality is there when not observed. This is assumption that is hardwired into our brains by evolution and it is not relaxed in science.
Well, of course you can say that you don't take it for granted if you are philosopher or if you want to sound smarter than you actually are.

 

[zonde]

there's no reason the universe can't observe itself - by observe, we just mean "measure". A detector can be an observer, or even a gas molecule. No "consciousness" required

Is this philosophy or physics?

 

[e.bar.goum]

Is this philosophy or physics?

Well, interpretations of quantum mechanics can go either way, right?

 

[zonde]

Well, interpretations of quantum mechanics can go either way, right?

Yes, and this is disturbing.

 

[bhobba]

Is this philosophy or physics?

Its physics.

The modern theory of decoherence has pretty much settled the issue - observation, measurement, call it what you like, is interaction. A few issues remain - but that part is pretty certain.

Thanks
Bill