Reality does not exist until it is measured

The problem with Schrodinger's formulation is its' strictly anthropocentric focus. In short - ask the cat.

Kevin

Is there any possible application to this, or is this just one of those things you can think about while puffing away behind a bead curtain?

blackjack2564 said:

I think I am.

Therefore I am.

Click to expand...

I measure therefore it is.

I pretty sure the entire universe is all just something happening inside MY head, and I can't believe I imagined this insane experiment or anything like quantum physics at all. I must be going nuts! I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!

I thought Winston's post about the microscopic drum (macroscopic compared to quantum theory) is interesting. Usually, mathematically quantum effects come into play at really some sizes. Some articles in Scientific American magazine over the years indicated that quantum effects on the very small scales would become decoupled with macroscopic scales, thus the paradox of Schrodinger's cat can be explained. I have not read Winston's latest post carefully, but skimming it over it says that the drum effects can be seen on a macroscopic scale.

Einstein was always skeptical about quantum theory and there are scientist that agree with him. On the other hand quantum electromagnetic theory has been measured to the highest accuracy of any scientific theory.

aerostadt said:

I thought Winston's post about the microscopic drum (macroscopic compared to quantum theory) is interesting. Usually, mathematically quantum effects come into play at really some sizes. Some articles in Scientific American magazine over the years indicated that quantum effects on the very small scales would become decoupled with macroscopic scales, thus the paradox of Schrodinger's cat can be explained. I have not read Winston's latest post carefully, but skimming it over it says that the drum effects can be seen on a macroscopic scale.

Einstein was always skeptical about quantum theory and there are scientist that agree with him. On the other hand quantum electromagnetic theory has been measured to the highest accuracy of any scientific theory.

Click to expand...

That's why that macroscopic appearance of quantum phenomena is so interesting. If it works at higher than microscopic scales for the uncertainty principle, where does it actually end?

Physics: Quantum all the way

How does our classical world emerge from the counterintuitive principles of quantum theory? Can we even be sure that the world doesn't 'go quantum' when no one is watching? Philip Ball talks to the theorists and experimentalists trying to find out.

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080430/full/453022a.html

alexzogh said:

This isn't what the experiment proved at all, in fact, it proved the opposite. This is only true if you believe the atom specifically took one path or the other. I don't believe that at all - I believe the atom had the probability to take both paths, as quantum theory, and the many worlds theory accurately predicts.

At the end of the article, he tried to explain the disconnect you think you are seeing, although he could have done a better job.

"If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott."

"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said.

Click to expand...

Here's the word from the guy who thought up this experiment years ago:

https://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

Excerpt:

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well

Why does the universe exist? Wheeler believes the quest for an answer to that question inevitably entails wrestling with the implications of one of the strangest aspects of modern physics: According to the rules of quantum mechanics, our observations influence the universe at the most fundamental levels. The boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness that seemed so clearly defined in physics before the eerie discoveries of the 20th century blurs in quantum mechanics. When physicists look at the basic constituents of reality— atoms and their innards, or the particles of light called photons— what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or a hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place. Wheeler takes the quantum view and runs with it.

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.

"You are false data."

A lot of interesting stuff. This is off the subject a bit, but in last month's Scientific American there was an article that Quantum effects may end space-time at the event horizon of a black hole. The conventional thinking from general relativity is that an object continues to fall through the event horizon and cannot escape.

Here's another interesting take with a similar experiment with the same results which I finally found via transcript searches in the Through the Looking Glass episode I'd seen:

Through the Wormhole -Season 6, Episode 02 - Can Time Go Backwards

[video=dailymotion;x2pfnrc]https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pfnrc_through-the-wormhole-season-6-episode-02-can-time-go-backwards_shortfilms[/video]

Experiment coverage begins at 11:43.

aerostadt said:

A lot of interesting stuff. This is off the subject a bit, but in last month's Scientific American there was an article that Quantum effects may end space-time at the event horizon of a black hole. The conventional thinking from general relativity is that an object continues to fall through the event horizon and cannot escape.

Click to expand...

That rings a bell, but I don't think I saw it in SciAm or on their site since I don't have that on my daily visit list. I'll have to add their site.

This is a fantastic time to be alive when it comes to physics. There are so many mind-blowing things going on. Testable multiverse theories for one. And I hope they come up with the Grand Unification Theory sooner rather than later.

Strings attached to future high temperature superconductivity
Feb 12, 2015

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-future-high-temperature-superconductivity.html

The behaviour of strongly correlated electron systems, such as high temperature superconductors, defies explanation in the language of ordinary quantum theory. A seemingly unrelated area of physics, string theory, might give physicists a better understanding of the weird behaviour of this kind of collective electron system. A bird's eye view was recently published in Nature by five world experts in the field, among which Jan Zaanen from Leiden University/Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics.

[snip]

Holographic duality

In string theory, there exist many dualities: equivalent descriptions of a problem in two different ways. Depending on the problem, one description is usually easier than the other. The most famous duality was discovered by Juan Maldacena in 1997. This so-called AdS/CFT duality connects quantum field theory with a theory of gravity. It turns out that there is a holographic connection between the two, for which the field theory can be thought of as living on the boundary of an anti-deSitter space.

Mathematical toolbox

In 2007, theoretical physicists like Jan Zaanen started to use this holographic duality as a mathematical toolbox to play around with in the field of superconductors. To their surprise, it turned out that certain weird aspects, such as the behaviour of 'strange metals', can be described as the holographic dual of a black hole. That doesn't mean there are real black holes in superconductors, but the same mathematical tools can be used to describe both phenomena.

As a bonus, string theory also benefits from this exchange of tools, especially in the field of quantum information. With hot topics such as large scale entanglement, there are many similarities with strongly correlated electron systems such as superconductors.

A revolution in physics?

The authors conclude their extensive review with the remark that 'The jury is still out on whether this is a coincidence or signals the onset of a revolution in physics.' But when asked, Jan Zaanen is more outspoken: "I think we are facing a revolution."

Scientists find a practical test for string theory
Jan 06, 2014

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html

Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have identified a practical, yet overlooked, test of string theory based on the motions of planets, moons and asteroids, reminiscent of Galileo's famed test of gravity by dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa.

String theory is infamous as an eloquent theoretical framework to understand all forces in the universe —- a so-called "theory of everything" —- that can't be tested with current instrumentation because the energy level and size scale to see the effects of string theory are too extreme.

Yet inspired by Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, Towson University scientists say that precise measurements of the positions of solar-system bodies could reveal very slight discrepancies in what is predicted by the theory of general relativity and the equivalence principle, or establish new upper limits for measuring the effects of string theory.

String theory hopes to provide a bridge between two well-tested yet incompatible theories that describe all known physics: Einstein's general relativity, our reigning theory of gravity; and the standard model of particle physics, or quantum field theory, which explains all the forces other than gravity.

String theory posits that all matter and energy in the universe is composed of one-dimensional strings. These strings are thought to be a quintillion times smaller than the already infinitesimal hydrogen atom and thus too minute to detect indirectly. Similarly, finding signs of strings in a particle accelerator would require millions of times more energy than what has been needed to identify the famous Higgs boson.

"Scientists have joked about how string theory is promising...and always will be promising, for the lack of being able to test it," said Dr. James Overduin of the Department of Physics, Astronomy and Geosciences at Towson University, first author on the paper. "What we have identified is a straightforward method to detect cracks in general relativity that could be explained by string theory, with almost no strings attached."

String theory is interesting stuff, but the theory for particles has its problems. Most scientist feel that the mathematics introduced by String theory is valuable regardless of the validity of the theory itself for quantum particles like the proton make-up. A criticism of string theory can be found in the book, "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. One of the glaring faults for string theory is that it requires many higher dimensions and no dimensions higher than 4 have ever been found. Another problem is the high energies that normally must be used to prove that the theory is false or not. There are also the problems of compatibility of quantum theory with relativity.

Quantum mechanics? Sounds like a great career opportunity!



(Since part of my job involves semiconductor design, I'm sort of a "shade tree" quantum mechanic )

aerostadt said:

One of the glaring faults for string theory is that it requires many higher dimensions and no dimensions higher than 4 have ever been found.

Click to expand...

Or are likely to ever be found. That's one of the huge problems testing the validity of string theory directly.

Another problem is the high energies that normally must be used to prove that the theory is false or not.

Click to expand...

That's another insurmountable path to confirming it. It would take energies millions of times that of the LHC to test it using collisions. This is specifically why I posted the two posts I did above. IF string theory can be confirmed by being shown to be correct in the predictions made by using it, that's a back-door way to confirm it.

There are also the problems of compatibility of quantum theory with relativity.

Click to expand...

Which may be overcome with time since the whole point of pursuing string theory is:

How does string theory claim to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics?

String theory is an intrinsically quantum model of the universe (one composed of fundamental entities called "strings" of which all matter is composed of) in which such things as general relativity come about directly from the mathematics of the theory (at low energies). If we have a quantum theory that also encompasses relativity, then it can be said to unify the two. In other words, string theory is a way of introducing gravity into a quantum theory, and it is one that can be shown to encompass both relativity and quantum field theory, which are the theories that describe gravity and the rest of the fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear forces, plus electromagnetism), respectively.

And, since there's no way in hell I can follow the math myself, it's primarily the following event that makes me think string theory isn't just mathematical games, five independent mathematical paths that everyone thought made the theory just a clumsy math game mess until a genius came along and showed that they were five routes to the same thing:

M-theory

By the mid 1990s, physicists working on string theory had developed five different consistent versions of theory with the right properties to unify Einstein's theory of general relativity with the standard model of particle physics. These versions are known as type I, type IIA, type IIB, and the two flavors of heterotic string theory (SO(32) and E8×E8). The thinking was that out of these five candidate theories, only one was the actual correct theory of everything, and that theory was the one whose low energy limit matched the physics observed in our world today.

Speaking at the string theory conference at University of Southern California in 1995, Witten made the surprising suggestion that these five string theories were in fact not distinct theories, but different limits of a single theory which he called M-theory. Witten's proposal was based on the observation that the five string theories can be mapped to one another by certain rules called dualities and are identified by these dualities.

Witten's announcement led to a flurry of work now known as the second superstring revolution.

This was covered in:

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

https://www.amazon.com/dp/039333810X/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

From that 15 Feb 2015 news post above:

Holographic duality

In string theory, there exist many dualities: equivalent descriptions of a problem in two different ways. Depending on the problem, one description is usually easier than the other. The most famous duality was discovered by Juan Maldacena in 1997. This so-called AdS/CFT duality connects quantum field theory with a theory of gravity. It turns out that there is a holographic connection between the two, for which the field theory can be thought of as living on the boundary of an anti-deSitter space.

Mathematical toolbox

In 2007, theoretical physicists like Jan Zaanen started to use this holographic duality as a mathematical toolbox to play around with in the field of superconductors. To their surprise, it turned out that certain weird aspects, such as the behaviour of 'strange metals', can be described as the holographic dual of a black hole. That doesn't mean there are real black holes in superconductors, but the same mathematical tools can be used to describe both phenomena.

As a bonus, string theory also benefits from this exchange of tools, especially in the field of quantum information. With hot topics such as large scale entanglement, there are many similarities with strongly correlated electron systems such as superconductors.

A revolution in physics?

The authors conclude their extensive review with the remark that 'The jury is still out on whether this is a coincidence or signals the onset of a revolution in physics.' But when asked, Jan Zaanen is more outspoken: "I think we are facing a revolution."

RFMan said:

Quantum mechanics? Sounds like a great career opportunity!

View attachment 264408

(Since part of my job involves semiconductor design, I'm sort of a "shade tree" quantum mechanic )

Click to expand...

Funny ad. From your user name, you're an RF semiconductor designer? I suspect that's even hairier than digital semiconductor design.

I think a lot of what is going on in physics right now is sort of like the period between Kepler and Newton. Kepler was able to define the laws of planetary motion and accurately describe the scientific measurements of the motions of the planets. But for a long time there was no theoretical framework for WHY they behaved that way. Science knew the FACTS, but struggled to develop the THEORY. Newton was able to finally make sense of it.

And then centuries later, even more accurate measurements of things like the orbit of Mercury found new unexplainable inconsistencies that were later explained by Einstein's theory of gravitation as a warp in space-time.

Now, our scientific measurements of the very small and our techniques for measuring quantum effects are yielding facts that we are struggling to explain. Experiments like this one and the simpler two-slit one yield measurable results --- FACTS --- that don't really seem to make sense. There are a lot of very complicated and incomplete theories that are being developed, but none are really working out yet. Most likely, the theory will be much simpler and more elegant than where we seem to be headed now. Maybe we'll get it sorted out in our lifetime (and maybe not).

Then some other crazy unexplainable fact will be discovered after that....

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I think a lot of what is going on in physics right now is sort of like the period between Kepler and Newton. Kepler was able to define the laws of planetary motion and accurately describe the scientific measurements of the motions of the planets. But for a long time there was no theoretical framework for WHY they behaved that way. Science knew the FACTS, but struggled to develop the THEORY. Newton was able to finally make sense of it.

And then centuries later, even more accurate measurements of things like the orbit of Mercury found new unexplainable inconsistencies that were later explained by Einstein's theory of gravitation as a warp in space-time.

Now, our scientific measurements of the very small and our techniques for measuring quantum effects are yielding facts that we are struggling to explain. Experiments like this one and the simpler two-slit one yield measurable results --- FACTS --- that don't really seem to make sense. There are a lot of very complicated and incomplete theories that are being developed, but none are really working out yet. Most likely, the theory will be much simpler and more elegant than where we seem to be headed now. Maybe we'll get it sorted out in our lifetime (and maybe not).

Then some other crazy unexplainable fact will be discovered after that....

Click to expand...

Exactly, our knowledge and tech has nearly reached critical mass.

More extremely bizarre stuff being confirmed:

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement
May 27, 2015

https://phys.org/news/2015-05-spacetime-built-quantum-entanglement.html

Excerpt:

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon whereby quantum states such as spin or polarization of particles at different locations cannot be described independently. Measuring (and hence acting on) one particle must also act on the other, something that Einstein called "spooky action at distance." The work of Ooguri and collaborators shows that this quantum entanglement generates the extra dimensions of the gravitational theory.


Which helps along the way to proving the validity of this:

Is the universe a hologram?
Apr 27, 2015

https://phys.org/news/2015-04-universe-hologram.html

Calculated Twice, Same Result

"If quantum gravity in a flat space allows for a holographic description by a standard quantum theory, then there must by physical quantities, which can be calculated in both theories - and the results must agree", says Grumiller. Especially one key feature of quantum mechanics -quantum entanglement - has to appear in the gravitational theory.

"This calculation affirms our assumption that the holographic principle can also be realized in flat spaces. It is evidence for the validity of this correspondence in our universe", says Max Riegler (TU Wien). "The fact that we can even talk about quantum information and entropy of entanglement in a theory of gravity is astounding in itself, and would hardly have been imaginable only a few years back. That we are now able to use this as a tool to test the validity of the holographic principle, and that this test works out, is quite remarkable", says Daniel Grumiller.
This however, does not yet prove that we are indeed living in a hologram - but apparently there is growing evidence for the validity of the correspondence principle in our own universe.

This just occurred to me. The phenomena that was revealed in the original part of this post as described by the guy who thought of the experiment:

https://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

Excerpt:

Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well

Why does the universe exist? Wheeler believes the quest for an answer to that question inevitably entails wrestling with the implications of one of the strangest aspects of modern physics: According to the rules of quantum mechanics, our observations influence the universe at the most fundamental levels. The boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness that seemed so clearly defined in physics before the eerie discoveries of the 20th century blurs in quantum mechanics. When physicists look at the basic constituents of reality— atoms and their innards, or the particles of light called photons— what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or a hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place. Wheeler takes the quantum view and runs with it.

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.

kinda' meshes with the much maligned theory (so far) of the mind acting as a quantum computer where quantum entanglement of the brain with the outside world could affect the quantum phenomena that occur around it:

Quantum Mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Orchestrated objective reduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

This mind as quantum computer theory is covered starting at 10:13 in this "Through the Wormhole" episode:

[video=youtube;MMgn6gb1WsY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMgn6gb1WsY[/video]

EDIT NOTE: I'm attracted to the connection of this theory with the results of quantum experimentation, NOT because I buy into his additional theory extension about how quantum entanglement might lead to eternal consciousness after brain death.

One of the early selling points of string theory was that it naturally predicted that the graviton would have a spin of two, which is the commonly accepted value. Some of the mathematics of 1-D string theory for the heuristic description of protons is not too bad. Another early selling point was the appearance of the Beta function in the scattering function for meson collisions and the appearance of resonance for the creation of new mesons at certain collision energy levels. Of course things get worse as M-Theory is invoked. A lot of scientist like to poke fun at the idea that no one is certain what the "M" in M-Theory stands for.

Winston said:

Funny ad. From your user name, you're an RF semiconductor designer? I suspect that's even hairier than digital semiconductor design.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm an electromagnetics (microwave and RF) guy, which leaves me in the classical electrodynamics corner when it comes to quantum. However, I also spend a lot of time with metrology, semiconductor design and processing, and materials, so it all keeps me busy and not bored Bad side-effect is not nearly enough rocket building and flying time.

I'm really enjoying this thread. Lots of extra reading!

alexzogh said:

If you look at the squares labeled A and B, the majority of people would indicate that A is clearly a black square in the light, while B is a white square in the shade.

Click to expand...

I see two (2) shades of gray and a green cylinder. I suppose I'm not color blind.

Don't get me started on entropy and the one way arrow of time.

When time machines collide.....

aerostadt said:

A lot of scientist like to poke fun at the idea that no one is certain what the "M" in M-Theory stands for.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that pointed out in a documentary where that question was asked. Very funny. I think it was asked of some of the geniuses working at this impressive institute:

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/

Paper: The Observer in the Quantum Experiment

https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0011/0011086.pdf

7. CONCLUSIONS

Though quantum mechanics is a fully consistent theory and sufficient as a useful guide to the physical phenomena around us, we may wish more than an algorithm for computing probabilities. Classical physics provided more; it imparted a worldview, but one we now know to be fundamentally flawed.

The observations encompassed by classical physics allowed the exclusion of the observer from the universe addressed by physics. The worldview suggested by the quantum experiment either challenges that exclusion or suggests new physical phenomena. It not only hints at a different view of reality, but “[It is] likely that the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us.”(27)

Physicists appropriately seek the least astonishing solution. However, recent comments on the observer problem can give the impression that the issue has been resolved, that no hints of a deeper mystery are present. It is a temptation (that we can share) to reject observer involvement as being so preposterous that no conceivable evidence could ever establish it. But such a stance hardly seems open-minded, and the history of science suggests it is flawed.

Since the observer problem in classical physics (the conflict of free will with determinism) arose only within the theory, the problem could be evaded by excluding consideration of the mind of the observer from the realm encompassed by the theory. This option seems unavailable to quantum physics since the intrusion of the observer occurs in the experimental observations. To avoid the observer in this case, the excluded realm must be greater and its boundary more vague. If, indeed, the reality that physics addresses is only part of a larger interacting reality including the observer, quantum physics experiments have disclosed physical evidence for the existence of such a larger reality.

[video=youtube;MrCPIrs90eg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCPIrs90eg[/video]

Quantum minds: Why we think like quarks
5 Sep 2011

The fuzziness and weird logic of the way particles behave applies surprisingly well to how humans think

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...inds-why-we-think-like-quarks.html?full=true#

Excerpt. Emphasis mine:

THE quantum world defies the rules of ordinary logic. Particles routinely occupy two or more places at the same time and don't even have well-defined properties until they are measured. It's all strange, yet true - quantum theory is the most accurate scientific theory ever tested and its mathematics is perfectly suited to the weirdness of the atomic world.

Yet that mathematics actually stands on its own, quite independent of the theory. Indeed, much of it was invented well before quantum theory even existed, notably by German mathematician David Hilbert. Now, it's beginning to look as if it might apply to a lot more than just quantum physics, and quite possibly even to the way people think.

Human thinking, as many of us know, often fails to respect the principles of classical logic. We make systematic errors when reasoning with probabilities, for example. Physicist Diederik Aerts of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium, has shown that these errors actually make sense within a wider logic based on quantum mathematics. The same logic also seems to fit naturally with how people link concepts together, often on the basis of loose associations and blurred boundaries. That means search algorithms based on quantum logic could uncover meanings in masses of text more efficiently than classical algorithms.

It may sound preposterous to imagine that the mathematics of quantum theory has something to say about the nature of human thinking. This is not to say there is anything quantum going on in the brain, only that "quantum" mathematics really isn't owned by physics at all, and turns out to be better than classical mathematics in capturing the fuzzy and flexible ways that humans use ideas. "People often follow a different way of thinking than the one dictated by classical logic," says Aerts. "The mathematics of quantum theory turns out to describe this quite well."

My question: what type of math would the human brain most likely use if it were a quantum computer?

shreadvector said:

"You are false data."

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;qjGRySVyTDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk[/video]

shreadvector said:

[video=youtube;qjGRySVyTDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk[/video]

Click to expand...

That was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid. That's a fun scene when he talks phenomenology to the bomb. Of course that clip is not the end of the movie...

I came up with my own saying a few years ago that even my pastor (he also has a degree in electrical engineering) likes. It goes like this "People are God's version of Quantum Mechanics on a macroscopic scale."