Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Measurement Rules Quantum Universe

  1. Jun 2, 2015 #1
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2015 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    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"
     
  4. Jun 2, 2015 #3
    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
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2015
  5. Jun 2, 2015 #4

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  6. Jun 2, 2015 #5
    Thanks e.bar.goum and phinds

    :)
     
  7. Jun 2, 2015 #6

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    as ebar said, pop science is not to be trusted. NOTHING is ever settled in pop-science if it lends itself to dramatic headlines.
     
  8. Jun 2, 2015 #7

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

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

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

    Thanks
    Bill
     
  9. Jun 2, 2015 #8

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  10. Jun 2, 2015 #9
    My go-to-physics Professor said, in response to this statement on the physorg.com equivalent article regarding the same experiment:

    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.
     
  11. Jun 3, 2015 #10
    what i took out of it isnt the fact that reality isnt 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.
     
  12. Jun 3, 2015 #11

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. Jun 3, 2015 #12

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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)
     
  14. Jun 3, 2015 #13

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmm, what you are saying seems consistent with what I said.
     
  15. Jun 3, 2015 #14

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    So what log is this in my eye, exactly?
     
  16. Jun 3, 2015 #15

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. Jun 3, 2015 #16

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Reality doesn't care whether we say or not that "reality doesn't care whether we measure it or not".
     
  18. Jun 3, 2015 #17

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  19. Jun 3, 2015 #18

    bhobba

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  20. Jun 3, 2015 #19
    obviously there is reality when no observed
     
  21. Jun 3, 2015 #20

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just as obviously, there is absolutely no scientific evidence of this as it relates to QM. You are assuming it. That is called "tautological".
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Measurement Rules Quantum Universe
  1. Quantum field rules? (Replies: 3)

  2. The Quantum Universe (Replies: 1)

  3. Quantum measurement? (Replies: 23)

  4. Quantum measurement (Replies: 12)

Loading...