The evidence is becoming quite clear. All is Quantum and this means the things science can't explain is easily explainable scientifically if all is
Quantum. This just means Quantum Mechanics applies on all scales but it will manifest differently for classical systems. The evidence is overwhelming
and I will lay out some of it here.
First let's look at Wigner's Friend. Recent experiments have confirmed Wigner's Friend on quantum levels. Wigner's Friend says two observers can
measure different outcomes for the same event. Basically put, Wigner's Friend tells us that Wigner's Friend in the lab can "collapse the wave
function" in the H and V basis in the lab and the single photon is no longer entangled. Wigner outside the lab can carry out an interference
measurement and he still sees interference and he can assume that his friend in the lab hasn't carried out a measurement.
He gets a call from his friend who tells him he carried out the measurement and the results now Wigner doesn't see interference. This sounds like
Bayesian updating and if we were talking about anything Universal, why didn't Wigner's Friend "collapse the interference" for Wigner?
Experimental test of local observer-independence
The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them.
In quantum mechanics, the objectivity of observations is not so clear, most dramatically exposed in Eugene Wigner's eponymous thought experiment
where two observers can experience seemingly different realities. The question whether these realities can be reconciled in an observer-independent
way has long remained inaccessible to empirical investigation, until recent no-go-theorems constructed an extended Wigner's friend scenario with four
observers that allows us to put it to the test. In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realise this extended Wigner's friend scenario,
experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by 5 standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and
free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
This is saying, until observers compare notes so to speak about the results of a measurement, they can both measure different outcomes for the same
event. SOUND FAMILIAR?
Frauchiger and Renner's thought experiment is about this very thing. They say if all is quantum, then on a classical level, 1/12 or around 8% of the
time classical observers will measure different outcomes for the same event.
Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself
Quantum theory provides an extremely accurate description of fundamental processes in physics. It thus seems likely that the theory is applicable
beyond the, mostly microscopic, domain in which it has been tested experimentally. Here, we propose a Gedankenexperiment to investigate the question
whether quantum theory can, in principle, have universal validity. The idea is that, if the answer was yes, it must be possible to employ quantum
theory to model complex systems that include agents who are themselves using quantum theory. Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find
that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty.
The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be
extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner.
The setup is now ripe for a contradiction. When Alice gets a YES for her measurement, she infers that the coin toss came up tails, and when Bob
gets a YES for his measurement, he infers the coin toss came up heads. Most of the time, Alice and Bob will get opposite answers. But Frauchiger and
Renner showed that in 1/12 of the cases both Alice and Bob will get a YES in the same run of the experiment, causing them to disagree about whether
Alice’s friend got a heads or a tails. “So, both of them are talking about the past event, and they are both sure what it was, but their
statements are exactly opposite,” Renner said. “And that’s the contradiction. That shows something must be wrong.”
This reminds me of Einstein and the EPR Paradox. Einstein set out to show Quantum Entanglement can't be right but in the end all he did was
strengthen it. Frauchiger and Renner have concluded something must be wrong but actually there conclusion tells us why we experience these things. We
call them strange coincidences.
I remember being at a store with my Mom and I was walking up the end of the aisle and my Mom came rushing up one of the aisles and said did you see
Patty. Patty is my cousin. There was nobody but me walking up the end of the aisle. We even looked around the store for my cousin Patty. Of course, my
Mom laughed it off and said she must have been mistaken. These types of things happen all the time but when they happen we just explain it away.
My Mom and I, for a split second, observed 2 different events? You have people that remember Mandela dying in jail while others don't. You have
people that are declared dead and their bodies are taken to the morgue, yet they are alive. Again, these things would happen around 8% of the time but
92% of the time observers will measure the same outcomes. This is spread out over the population but it's very noticeable.
Man Declared Dead by 3 Doctors Wakes Up in Morgue Just Hours Before Autopsy
'Dead' woman found alive in South Africa morgue fridge
72-year-old man declared dead by doctor found alive in mortuary
I can go on for 30 pages listing examples like these along with things labeled medical miracles. If all is quantum, this is what we should expect to
Let's go back to Wigner's Friend. Let's say Wigner's Friend in the lab is carrying out Schrodinger's Cat experiment. Wigner's Friend carries out
the experiment and the cat dies. Wigner outside can do interference measurements on the same particles his friends used but he finds interference and
comes to the conclusion that his friend didn't carry out the experiment yet. The interference will not change for Wigner until his friend calls him
and tells him the results. Until then, Wigner can measure a different outcome than his friend classically around 1/12 of the time.
So Wigner goes into the lab and Wigner's friend has left the lab. 92% of the time, Wigner will find a dead cat but 8% of the time he might find a
live cat if though his friend measured a dead cat. So the wave functions for Wigner and his friend are not in sync or in phase so to speak until
there's some Bayesian updating.
In this case, Wigner will find his friend and say, I've found the cat alive. Wigner's friend will just explain it away and say I thought the cat was
dead but I must have been mistaken ...