More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)

Very important stuff here because this was also recently talked about with Frauchiger and Renner. I talked about it in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they can — at the quantum level, that is.

Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state — and yet both of their observations would be correct.

For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be true.

www.livescience.com...

If you notice, Frauchiger and Renner also use an extension of Wigner's Friend.

Here's some on Wigner's Friend for those that may be unfamiliar with it.

This perplexing idea was the brainchild of Eugene Wigner, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1963. In 1961, Wigner had introduced a thought experiment that became known as "Wigner's friend." It begins with a photon — a particle of light. When an observer in an isolated laboratory measures the photon, they find that the particle's polarization — the axis on which it spins — is either vertical or horizontal.

However, before the photon is measured, the photon displays both polarizations at once, as dictated by the laws of quantum mechanics; it exists in a "superposition" of two possible states.

Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition.

That outsider's observation — their reality — therefore diverges from the reality of the person in the lab who measured the photon. Yet, neither of those conflicting observations is thought to be wrong, according to quantum mechanics.

www.livescience.com...

This is amazing if it stands the test of replication, this is because if all is Quantum like many Physicist believe, this means this quantum reality would manifest itself on a classical level.

So what we call strange coincidences might really occur and people can experience two different histories on a singular timeline because singular can never be permanent if all is Quantum.

This would mean two observers can experience two different outcomes of the same event. I talked about a time where my Mother was coming up the aisle and I was walking on the end of the aisle in a store and she saw my cousin walking at the end of the aisle and I didn't see her but what if both events occurred and we just explain it away as coincidence? There could be a timeline where my Mother saw my cousin and the timeline where my cousin wasn't in the store and these two timelines merged for a split second.

We hear about coincidences like this on a small and much larger scale, but of course it gets explained away.

There's a reason materialist fear QM effects occurring on a classical level. It's because it would destroy materialism which doesn't make any sense in the first place.

With the growth of Quantum Biology. it's clear this isn't the case and what people call the weirdness in QM can be seen on a classical level. It's also why as soon as you talk about a Quantum Mind, they freak out. We see QM on a classical level but some will tell us that QM has nothing to do with consciousness. Evolution is supposed to be so powerful yet nature wouldn't use QM effects to give a species like ours a huge advantage?

Again, the reason this occurs is because things we call Psi would be easily explained because things like superposition and entanglement would be linked to consciousness. So everything from Twin Telepathy to Psychic Ability would have a scientific explanation.

a reply to: neoholographic

Oh my #ing god!!! This has nothing to do with explaining coincidences. You do this every time. You read an article about science and completly ignore the actual science. This is about locating photons.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Explain exactly why this wouldn't have anything to do with coincidence if all is Quantum like many Physicist believe.

You can't just make statements in a vacuum. Please back up your assertion and show me scientifically what would stop two different outcomes being observed on a classical level if all is Quantum.

a reply to: neoholographic

Livescience is a clickbait content provider. See all of the ads and click bait on the pages?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Woodcarver

Explain exactly why this wouldn't have anything to do with coincidence if all is Quantum like many Physicist believe.

You can't just make statements in a vacuum. Please back up your assertion and show me scientifically what would stop two different outcomes being observed on a classical level if all is Quantum.

Why would it have anything to do with coincidences?

a reply to: neoholographic

Most of the articles that they provide are written by journalists and not scientists. They write stories with headlines that will garner as many clicks as possible so that they can get paid by advertisers. What you should be doing is going in looking up what these scientists are doing and what the scientists are saying

More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)

Means!

More than one NEO!

RAWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

a reply to: neoholographic

I’m willing to make three bets

1) you don’t have any kind of college credits.

2) You don’t work in any kind of scientific field.

3) You found this article on Facebook

a reply to: Woodcarver

You're doing exactly what Pseudoskeptics do. You can't refute anything I have said with Science so you attack the source. Did you even read the article? Most of the quotes are from Scientist who carried out the experiment.

You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.

If Live Science is unreliable, why did the co-author of the study talk to them. Here's more:

"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said. "The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he said.

Again, more from the co-author of the study.

You can't refute what's being said so you attack the source. That's just an old tactic that doesn't work.

So please, refute what was said with science.

If all is Quantum, what would prevent 2 observers from seeing 2 different outcomes if these experiments are replicated?

Please answer the question using science and don't try to deflect.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Woodcarver

You're doing exactly what Pseudoskeptics do. You can't refute anything I have said with Science so you attack the source. Did you even read the article? Most of the quotes are from Scientist who carried out the experiment.

You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at the University of Innsbrück in Austria, told Live Science.

If Live Science is unreliable, why did the co-author of the study talk to them. Here's more:

"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said. "The stories we tell about quantum mechanics have to adapt to that," he said.

Again, more from the co-author of the study.

You can't refute what's being said so you attack the source. That's just an old tactic that doesn't work.

So please, refute what was said with science.

If all is Quantum, what would prevent 2 observers from seeing 2 different outcomes if these experiments are replicated?

Please answer the question using science and don't try to deflect.

You haven’t used any science to back up your claims. You used a Facebook Clickbait ad to justify a claim that it didn’t even make.

How many college credits do you have? How long of you been studying quantum physics?

a reply to: neoholographic

Nobody gets to just make claims, and insist that everyone else disprove them with science. It is literally the opposite of that.

a reply to: Woodcarver

LOL, can you be anymore predictable?

The Pseudoskeptic deflection is strong in this one

First you deflect by attacking the source when most of the article is about the study and they talked to the co-author of the study.

Next, you try to attack me and my credentials.

You do everything but refute scientifically what's being said.

I've been a Member of ATS since 2012 and have talked about my credentials numerous times.

I'm not going to let you deflect because you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Answer these simple questions.

If all is Quantum, what would prevent 2 observers from seeing 2 different outcomes if these experiments are replicated

Secondly, do you even know what all is Quantum means and why many Physicist believe all is Quantum?

I don't want deflection, I don't want evasive tactics just answer the questions using science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Woodcarver

LOL, can you be anymore predictable?

The Pseudoskeptic deflection is strong in this one

First you deflect by attacking the source when most of the article is about the study and they talked to the co-author of the study.

Next, you try to attack me and my credentials.

You do everything but refute scientifically what's being said.

I've been a Member of ATS since 2012 and have talked about my credentials numerous times.

I'm not going to let you deflect because you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Answer these simple questions.

If all is Quantum, what would prevent 2 observers from seeing 2 different outcomes if these experiments are replicated

Secondly, do you even know what all is Quantum means and why many Physicist believe all is Quantum?

I don't want deflection, I don't want evasive tactics just answer the questions using science.

Show me which part of that article states that their findings have anything to do with coincidences?

a reply to: neo96

There is Also one that Exists Outside of Space and Time that we have All Traveled from to here . Getting Back to it is Gonna be a Bitch ........

a reply to: Woodcarver

Again, it's obvious you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. I specifically said:

IF ALL IS QUANTUM LIKE MANY PHYSICIST BELIEVE!

I don't think you understand what that means. This is why I asked you.

If all is Quantum, what would prevent 2 observers from seeing 2 different outcomes if these experiments are replicated?

If All is Quantum then this study and Frauchiger and Renner have everything to do with coincidence because observers could observe two different outcomes for a singular event. I ask again:

Secondly, do you even know what all is Quantum means and why many Physicist believe all is Quantum?

If you don't even understand why many Physicist think all is Quantum, then you're just a Pseudoskeptic troll.

Please answer the questions.

You mean in the alternate reality I could have been sleeping with my high school sweetheart while in this reality I’m sleeping with my wife? Golly am I ever going to have good dreams tonight.

"It seems that, in contrast to classical physics, measurement results cannot be considered absolute truth but must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement," Ringbauer said.

logically this would mean either everyone is correct or no one is correct. there is no winner because there is no wrong answer. what a fun concept.

Don't expect a sensible, scientific dialogue with the trolls here who pose as knowledgeable in science but who hide their incompetance by trying to discredit questions they cannot answer either by tying them to sources they find questionable or by sarcastic remarks that fake intellectual superiority. Such displays of condescension are a cheap form of intellectual evasion that poses as preserving standards of scientific discussion, whereas in reality all they are are doing is hiding their inability to answer genuine questions that arise from respectable research, wherever it is reviewed.

a reply to: neo96

Schroedingersneo

Surely this is just another wave/particle observer effect carried out years ago? Sounds exactly the same regurgitated