Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

a reply to: elysiumfire

You are just trolling, or you do not understand that your blindness is due to your refusal to see, both stances explain your wilful ignorance!

So the behavior of particles that make up macroscopic reality has no bearing on macroscopic reality.

a reply to: mbkennel

Is there any experimental result specifically which proves *consciousness* is important?

In this experiment?

If reality, even if it was only at quantum level, doesn't exist when not observed, I would say that the observer, and therefore consciousness is key.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Once you take away the blind, materialist ASSUMPTION that a material particle can be in superposition and you accept that this superposition is non physical information of the wave function of observable states, then it makes perfect sense.

Depends on what you mean by "material."

There is good evidence that what you refer to as "material" particles are indeed in superposition.

New (not really that new, BTW) methods of measurement leave the "wavicle" in superposition, i.e. measuring without collapsing the probability wave.

Link1

Link2

Harte

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I've noticed that sometimes people who know more, claim to know less, while people who know less, claim to know more. I suppose it's probably related to the Dunning Krueger effect.

Sean Carroll seems to know more about it than you and he says we don't know the real nature of the wave function but he's OK with treating it as more real than the Copenhagen interpretation.

I'm sticking with "what cannot be resolved by experiment is not worth debating" at least for scientific topics such as this. So far we haven't designed experiments which can determine which interpretation is correct. I read that some scientists think they might be able to do that and are trying. Those experimental results will mean a lot more than your unilateral proclamations that an electron needs to behave like a die...it doesn't and I already explained why.

A wave function is real, when there is a wave, that is waving as a function....

Obviously, I would never debate that.

But!!!!

1 THING!

going through 2 separate tubes...

Well... yes it can occur; if that 1 thing is a wave.

Like 1 ocean wave, can go through 2 tubes.

But if you say that a particle exists; and we define the word particle as, ball like;

Then a ball like thing cannot go through 2 tubes at the same time.

If you want to define the word particle as; wave like; as in; an ocean wave is a particle;

Well then, we have nothing to disagree about under that guise.

According to those term definitions, I would agree, a particle would be able to go through 2 tubes at the same time.

This is all getting down to the nittiest grittiest; fundamental theoretical physics. The agreeance on what terms mean is important, and analogy is important in the relation of words and terms and concepts.

I would say, if a photon or electron is not ball like, do not call it a particle, unless you will call an ocean wave a particle.

If an ocean wave is always and forever a particle, yeah, have fun, go wild.

But then we must say, a photon is like an ocean wave, and in that sense it goes through 2 tubes at the same time.

The experiment was with an atom right, do you want to say an atom is like an ocean wave?

You do grasp I am expressing the lateral nature of such waves right, an ocean wave being laterally long and moving forward up and down like 2d wave cross section.

I suppose if an atom is 3 dimensional (4d), and it was traveling forward in space and time while moving up and down, it would be like an ocean wave, because it would also have lateral dimension.

But can an atom be split down the middle and travel in 2 separate tubes?

If not!

Then the 'wave function' is equivalent to the notion of probability, which is just to say: "we are ignorant within limits".

So if that latterest example is correct, and I claim under that impression; wave function isnt a thing, wave function isnt a thing that exists.

And you say; you are wrong in saying that.

Then you are saying; probability is a real thing that exists (not the concept, but that when you toss a dice in the air, 'probability matter exists surrounding the scene and the dice, and it has its own energy value, and probability really exists as a real thing'.

a reply to: HotMale

The first problem arises, when considering that it is not even known what is 'shot into the experiment' (usually at least, with photons and such, and 'electron beams'.)

The experiment was with 1 single atom?

Ok, so lets assume they do know that they had 1 exact atom, and were able to begin it into the apparatus;

With radiation, the moment prior to the atom entering the apparatus, through to the atom entering the apparatus, it was given energy? and they make sure none of that energy follows the atom into the apparatus, ok;

The atom, with its electron/s orbiting traveling through a material tube; does not create radiation with the material of the tube?

Does the atom rotate multiple ways, front flip, rotate, back flip, neat and tidy, or chaotic? Does it touch the walls of the apparatus it is traveling through?

Ok, so exactly 1 atom is sent in;

In the experiment before they tamper with things or have switches and stuff (I am assuming this is delayed choice esque) the atom goes through and they detect 1 atom with the detector?

Send 1 atom in, the atom is detected at the end, right?

Ok and the experiment is that; there are 2 paths the atom can take;

And so where is the controversy; with or without tampering in the middle, sometimes, or, only when something is tampered with in the middle, the detector detects more than 1 atom?

a reply to: ImaFungi

The experiment was with 1 single atom? Ok, so lets assume they do know that they had 1 exact atom, and were able to begin it into the apparatus;

Really, you weren't even aware of the experiment's setup and now you are questioning their methods?

Please.

Is this a joke?

You clearly have no idea at all.

a reply to: mbkennel

Explaining it as saying "the particle took both paths" is the problem: it's the wavefunction which takes all sorts of paths and occasionally behaves and instantiates as a particle.

This is such a cop out.

"I can't make sense of it so ascribe all possible scenarios and properties to it and now it makes sense"

There is no random particle/wave duality.

In the double slit experiments a particle only becomes a wave because it takes both paths and causes interference when there is no path info available.

originally posted by: HotMale

Really, you weren't even aware of the experiment's setup and now you are questioning their methods?

Please.

Is this a joke?

You clearly have no idea at all.

Respond to what I asked in my last reply.

I assumed the experiment is similar to all other delay choice experiments.

Because a normal;

Enter 1 atom at Side A;

Detect 1 atom at Side B;

There is no controversy right?

Controversy only occurs when in between Side A and Side B; 'something' is tampered with; right?

a reply to: ImaFungi

I assumed the experiment is similar to all other delay choice experiments.

How credible are you if you can't even find the link to the experiment and review it?

There is no controversy right?

What, the whole of Quantum Physics is controversial, it is yet unexplained. But hey, let me guess, it is predictable right, and that is enough right?

The controversy here, and in other Delayed Choice experiments is that the interference/non interference pattern is detected at a point in time before it is established wether the path is known or not known, and it always lines up with each other.

The outcome of a past event which is dependent on the outcome of a future measurement always lines up with the outcome of the future measurement even though it happened before the outcome of the future measurement was known, or even took place.

How do you explain this?

a reply to: ImaFungi

a reply to: TzarChasm

Is the professor that conducted this experiment in the OP, which I am discussing, being completely on topic, a troll too?

Your pathetic attempts to stifle free discussion are noted.

Are you mad that you can't keep up?

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: TzarChasm

Is the professor that conducted this experiment in the OP, which I am discussing, being completely on topic, a troll too?

Your pathetic attempts to stifle free discussion are noted.

Are you mad that you can't keep up?

You should quit while you're behind.

a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

Are you able to refute my last, or any of my claims, or just here for the driveby?

originally posted by: HotMale


What, the whole of Quantum Physics is controversial, it is yet unexplained. But hey, let me guess, it is predictable right, and that is enough right?

I said there was no controversy, in relation to the simplest form of the experiment;

1 atom enters Side A; 1 atom detected Side B.

You see, this should tell us immediately, that all 'weirdness' and controversy occurs due to the energy involved and released into the system, in whatever is done in between Side A and Side B, to create the controversy.

The controversy here, and in other Delayed Choice experiments is that the interference/non interference pattern is detected at a point in time before it is established wether the path is known or not known, and it always lines up with each other.

They are saying 1 atom, created an interference pattern?

What is a reason for assuming the reason for the results are not cause but correlation?

It is the same thing with double slit; and the true meaning of measurement problem; that the act of measuring adds energy into the system, the act of measuring alters the purity of reality without measurement; without measurement substance enters and exists; with measurement, substance enters, is tampered with by the energy required to measure, and thus there is a different result. Nothing odd or controversial or weird, it all makes sense.

Now sure, the fundamental connections and motions and existence of fundamental substance is likely or certainly not qualityless billiard balls; but this does not mean fundamental nature is so baffling odd or weird, I mean, everything is weird and nothing is weird, get over it, get used to it, the truth may be weird compared to the thoughts of the average mall shopper, but the truth of reality is pure sense, is pure reason.

And either the realness of the universe is real or fake. Knowledge will be sought either way, but only if it is fake, will underlying truths no make sense. This is not the reason why I am hesitant to believe in 'spooky' stuff; i am hesitant to believe because there are more reasonable reasons to explain experiments and evidence than spooky ones; and the very meaning of the spooky ones is unreasonable and nonsensical.

Now, one of the most likely reasons to my mind for these controversies, is;

That Earth is a stable classical object, which is moving multiple ways ; and so when almost extremely literally when the smallest fraction of object earth is loosed from its stable collective (as a part secure as a part of object earth) that there are interesting results.

All of this depends on how actually quanta exist, as themselves, and how intimately in relation to one another; what the heck and how the heck binding forces even mean. The reality of field theory, minus the theory, the reality of field reality. If fundamentally a classical object like the earth, is fundamentally locally connected (its parts) and even regardless, when 1 quanta is moved multiple quanta surrounding are effected in multiple ways; there are always feedbacks and resonances.

But let me finish with asking you this;

Lets assume your interpretation is correct. Do not be afraid to attempt to do what I am about to ask, just try to do it, if you cannot even attempt to do it conceptually, using analogies and anything at your disposal, than you have no right 'believing' your interpretation.

Lets assume 'information can travel back in time' (face palm)... ok, ok.

Give me some loose statements, brain storms, anything... please anything.... Of how this might be possible. Pretend you are God and have the ability to manifest any kind of substance into an infinite area of nothing as you want, what ways do you orient substance, what kinds of substance, how is it moving, how do different substances relate to each other qualitatively, so that it is meaningful, so that it is possible, so that it makes any sense, that 'substance "from the future" can interact with (itself?) substance from the past'?

If you are inclined to say things like; exactly, its so weird we cant know, we cant even think about it, thats the point of the oddity; or no one knows, no one can know, no one can even think or theorize about how its possible; or we just have to have faith in our ignorance, we just have to do the experiment and not think about it and say that substance in the future can effect itself in the past without questioning these statements or thinking about it and then pretend this means; please use your energy to respond to my other points, then wasting it stating these things I am already aware of and already know. I have attempted to see the scenario from all sides, i only care about Truth, I can accept any Truth, I do not want to accept anything other than Truth, so far everything I have seen on this subject is too sketchy and ill thought out for me to accept your stance.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: TzarChasm

Is the professor that conducted this experiment in the OP, which I am discussing, being completely on topic, a troll too?

Your pathetic attempts to stifle free discussion are noted.

Are you mad that you can't keep up?

no. it would be amusing if i didnt know you actually believe in physical objects popping in and out of existence based purely on the attention we give them.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You see, this should tell us immediately, that all 'weirdness' and controversy occurs due to the energy involved and released into the system, in whatever is done in between Side A and Side B, to create the controversy.

I see, so the "observer effect" is the cause for all quantum weirdness. If this was the case, then quantum mechanics are explained. You solved it!

Even the experimenter of this particular experiment doesn't get it, that is what you are saying.

Quantum eraser experiments have already proven that it is not the interaction of the particle with a measuring device that is causing the results, it is the availability of path info.

Lets assume 'information can travel back in time' (face palm)... ok, ok.

Sigh, I am not saying it does. It doesn't.

I, and this professor, am saying that the results can be viewed in only two ways, information travels back through time, or, reality manifests upon measurement.

We are both saying it is the latter.

a reply to: TzarChasm

no. it would be amusing if i didnt know you actually believe in physical objects popping in and out of existence based purely on the attention we give them.

Just calm down. Reality is still reality like we know it. It just works a little different than we thought.

I would say that the observer, and therefore consciousness is key.

That's a philosophic stance though, Hotmale. Its a respectable one, embraced I think by Von Neumann, Wigner, and others (I like Amit Goswami) but it doesn't have to be true, and is rejected by equally respectable figures. What's true seems to be a correlative relation between systems which defines the collapse. Your mind is necessarily a correlative system, (brain states correlate with reality) but if a much simpler system caused the collapse, how would you know except by virtue of your mind? You get in sort of a catch 22. Measuring/observing the system does something, but you only know it does something by virtue of your mind. It may be about consciousness, it may not be. I think QM is just as mystical if you reject that idea that human mind is important: We are left with the idea of a universe constantly "observing" itself.

And I was setting in my adirondac chair in the shade. I heard a gaggle of geese fly over. You know, the 'V' formations they tend to fly in. It was early morning..... By late morning they should have been a hundred miles further north by my reckoning. I nodded off for a bit ................. (must of stopped flying and held in space) so if this theory were to be correct, nothing started again until I woke.

THE article ..below
"
This is what the ANU team found in its experiment.

"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."



Professor Andrew Truscott may be an Associate, but not necessarily a reliable professor. I mean come on Barack 0bama, Nobel prize.......... but that sure became a joke and a worthless point on a resume'.
Mr. Truscott is an unknown. And even better known, so called scientist/physicist types seem demented at times. Like Hawking. It's all theory, until someone comes along and describes it differently in another time.

No room for creation........lol..

No matter where you are, you are always in the present. In the future or the past, you are always in the present.