Question Locally Unreal Universe

[SIDexplorer]

Since the noble awardee trio have proved that the Universe is locally unreal, what does an average free thinker and a scientist think about this? Does it signify sinulation hypothesis is real? If not, then does this disprove some of Einstein's claim to eventually disprove all of his work? If reality is observer dependent then does the proof say that consciousness is parent to every phenomena?

 

[Pogo]

This reminds one of Schrödinger’s cat. But, I'm skeptical that the particle described can neither be A or B until it's measured then the other particle changes to the opposite. I think that there are underlying properties that we have not yet discovered. I can't imagine that measuring the first particle changes the second particle really far away. And, no I don't think it will invalidate current theories, it'll eventually make adjustments to them, we are on the right track, just not there yet. We may someday connect quantum theory and relativity, the real 'world', etc. There will always be something we don't know. If we knew everything, there would no longer be need for physicists; no, we will never know everything, there will always be something for physicists to do and discover. Aaahh! The wonders of the universe, complete knowledge of everything would be boring, then we would no longer have a purpose.

 

[billslugg]

I did my best to understand quantum coupling but it escapes me. What they are saying is: observing a particle here can change the quantum state of an entangled particle far away. Prior to observing the local particle, both particles are in a superposition of two states, neither state dominating. Once the near particle is observed it lands in a specific state and dictates to the particle far away which state to land in once it is observed. However, no new information can be transmitted via this scenario since the state of the first particle to be observed is randomly determined. Since no information is transmitted faster than the speed of light, spooky action at a distance does not violate Einstein's theory.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This "spooky action at a distance" stuff seems to be a good bit conjecture, still. There is the issue of whether coupled things that have become separated were already "paired" and simply remained that way. The thought experiment coupled with that is the "left glove -right glove" conjecture. As I understand it, there are still efforts to disprove that concept.

What I am not seeing is a real effort to actually prove action at a distance. Show me an experiment that causes one of a pair of "entangled" somethings to be in a specified state and then show me that the paired, distant something is always in the opposite state. That is a demonstration of "action at a distance". Short of that, it seems that it is unproven, and just a concept that appeals to some to explain other apparent problems with observations.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, your concerns have been met. Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated with photons, electrons, neutrinos, buckyballs and small diamonds. See Wiki article on "Quantum Entanglement" references 11-18.

That it occurs instantaneously has been proven. Wiki reference 33

That it is not simply "left hand/right hand" has been proven. Google "Hidden variable theory" and "loophole free Bell's test".

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I did read "loophole free Bell's test" and it doesn't seem conclusive to me. Your WIkipedia link calls that "so-called 'loophole-free'".

As for you statement that "action at a distance" has been proven, please provide a link.

All I have ever seen is that "entanglement" has been shown to be statistically probable to endure with separation, although not 100% invulnerable to disruption. I have no problem with two things that cannot occupy the same state in the same place going into opposite states while in the same place and then retaining those states at a distance after separation. What I have never seen is somebody demonstrate that flipping one of the pair to a predetermined state actually flips the other member of the pair to the opposite state at a distance and within at period of time that is not possible for communication at light speed.

Show me that, or I am not convinced that there is action at a distance due to entanglement.

 

[billslugg]

The fact that an entangled particle assumes a certain state while at a distance is "action at a distance".

As for your other assertions, I am not well enough educated in the subject to answer them. I can only offer you the list of sources in the Wiki article, and after that, you are on your own. Me personally, I take them at their word it is proven. My thrust is to try and understand it, not try to disprove it. Can't help you there.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, you are saying that it "assumes" a particular state while at a distance. That is what I am not seeing being proven. I am only seeing that having measured one member of an entangled pair, the other member's state can be predicted with relatively high confidence.

If there is truly "action at a distance" then it should be possible to make all distant partners of entangled pairs assume prespecified parameters by manipulating the parameter of interest of the members at the controlled end of the separating distance. Show me an experiment that does that, and I will believe that it is true.

 

[billslugg]

I am not saying anything. The references I provided are saying it. Your issue is with them, not me. I can only provide you the proofs, I cannot explain them to you or help you understand them. As you might notice, my very first word on the subject was: "I did my best to understand quantum coupling but it escapes me." Your questions have now exceeded my understanding of the subject. As I said just a moment ago; "You are on your own".

 

[Unclear Engineer]

So far the only argument that I have seen about action at a distance is this: quantum states are assumed to be in "superposition" until measured, when they "collapse" to the measured value. So, the argument that is being made seems to me to be that measuring one of a pair of entangled things in one place will have the "action" of "collapsing" the superposition of the distant member of the entangled pair to the proper state for the pair. Which means that we must accept "superposition" as fact and then define "collapse" as an "action".

If that is all there is to it, then I think describing that to laypeople as "action at a distance" is not appropriate. And extrapolating that to "The universe is not real" is really inappropriate.

My test for action at a distance is this: Show me an entangled pair of something, with the members separated by a long distance, and measurements of their properties scheduled in advance for the one near me to be followed by the one far from me within a period of time that is too short for light to travel from me to the far member of the pair. I will tell you to make the measured parameter for the pair member at my end be a particular result, say "spin down" and you will do that. Then, I want to see that the measurement at the distant point comes out "spin up" every time. A separation of Earth to Moon should be sufficient for setting the spin after the specification is made for the near-me member of the entangled pair (>1 second light travel time).

 

[Pogo]

I really think that the premeasured state is whichever it is, we just don’t know what until it’s measured. I just don’ know that it changes just because we look at it.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The reason that quantum theorists don't want to give up on the superposition idea is that it helps them "explain" how some paradoxes could work out if the "decision" about the state of something "entangled" is not determined until after an interaction has occurred.

The silly thing about saying "The universe isn't real" is that would mean that the person saying it and his ideas "aren't real" either. So, if the person is insisting that his ideas "aren't real", why bother listening to him? Maybe he needs to think about communicating his ideas more realistically?

 

[SIDexplorer]

The reason that quantum theorists don't want to give up on the superposition idea is that it helps them "explain" how some paradoxes could work out if the "decision" about the state of something "entangled" is not determined until after an interaction has occurred.

The silly thing about saying "The universe isn't real" is that would mean that the person saying it and his ideas "aren't real" either. So, if the person is insisting that his ideas "aren't real", why bother listening to him? Maybe he needs to think about communicating his ideas more realistically?

'The Universe isn't real' is something you seem to be saying, no one has said that, the Universe isn't real and the Universe isn't locally real are two very different approaches to define the state of the Universe in terms of reality and actuality.

Also since the time of Einstein QM has baffled scientists, you my friend are no scientist to challenge those great men who devoted their lives trying to understand the mystery that is QM.

After numerous tests and observations only the said conclusion has been reached which too can be challenged, but it can't be challenged verbally and with over smartness and idiotic ideas, it needs to be proven mathematically. Science doesn't seek feedback, all it seeks is proof.

There are plentiful who mock Einstein and prove him wrong in two or three sentences like you just did, lol, but that hasn't changed the reality of Einstein's GR and SR.

It's not about ego and irritation, you can't just refuse to accept the fact for what it is, anger too has no place in scientific arguments.

And must you know that anger tells us that you are frustrated over something your mind is finding hard to take for what it is.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Well, SID, that was a pretty arrogant post, so I am going to try to be polite in responding, But I want you to know that telling me that I am not a scientist is way off the mark. And, drawing in GR success to respond to criticisms of media communications about QM is an extraneous rhetorical tactic that I infer suggests you cannot support your own assertions.

You seem to be responding only to my final paragraph,

The silly thing about saying "The universe isn't real" is that would mean that the person saying it and his ideas "aren't real" either. So, if the person is insisting that his ideas "aren't real", why bother listening to him? Maybe he needs to think about communicating his ideas more realistically?

That was my way of poking fun at the way that QM is used to make "Wow, that's weird" type statements to laypeople, without any attempt to actually communicate the thinking behind the counter-intuitive conclusions. While I am no expert in QM, I do have extensive science and engineering education and experience, and I have found that I can usually follow an explanation that does not involve a lot of jargon and unstated assumptions. And, I have found that real experts who really understand what they are talking about, as compared to simply parroting what they have read or been taught, can make such explanations.

So, here is your test question: Please provide an explanation, suitable for laypeople, to support your implied assertion that the universe can be "not locally real" but still "real". And, you need to do it without relying on URLs or other reference links.

And please reread the last sentence in my post that seems to have set you off: "Maybe he needs to think about communicating his ideas more realistically?" That was my point. Can you do that?

 

[SIDexplorer]

Well, SID, that was a pretty arrogant post, so I am going to try to be polite in responding, But I want you to know that telling me that I am not a scientist is way off the mark. And, drawing in GR success to respond to criticisms of media communications about QM is an extraneous rhetorical tactic that I infer suggests you cannot support your own assertions.

You seem to be responding only to my final paragraph,


That was my way of poking fun at the way that QM is used to make "Wow, that's weird" type statements to laypeople, without any attempt to actually communicate the thinking behind the counter-intuitive conclusions. While I am no expert in QM, I do have extensive science and engineering education and experience, and I have found that I can usually follow an explanation that does not involve a lot of jargon and unstated assumptions. And, I have found that real experts who really understand what they are talking about, as compared to simply parroting what they have read or been taught, can make such explanations.

So, here is your test question: Please provide an explanation, suitable for laypeople, to support your implied assertion that the universe can be "not locally real" but still "real". And, you need to do it without relying on URLs or other reference links.

And please reread the last sentence in my post that seems to have set you off: "Maybe he needs to think about communicating his ideas more realistically?" That was my point. Can you do that?

First of all I'm sorry for being rude,

You still haven't got the point, questioning something isn't the problem whereas claiming to have found a loophole in something with words alone is definitely a problem.

I can't answer your question but I can definitely say that the Universe hasn't been declared all unreal until you or I make an observation. The thing is we have quite failed in defining the observer, we don't know who the observer is, whose presence and especially approval the Universe seeks.

The problem with science is that even if you want to discard something then also you'll have to disprove it and all the means of it getting proved at a later stage also.

We can't ever prove or disprove with words alone. Locally unreal Universe does question the Universe's state until observed but it doesn't talk about any entity whose observation is a must.

I suggest 'Biocentrism' by robert lanza, it's a great work, but it's no mathematical basis which is why it's mocked, rudiculed and laughed at by scientists. But I've read it and suggest you to read the same, biocentrism was mocked until the Noble laureates hadn't proved the Universe's unreal nature, I'm hopeful that people will surely look at it in a positive way henceforth...

Besides I'm again telling you that I haven't questioned their claim, so have I not proved or disproved anything on my own with the usage of words alone, hence I'm not liable to answer your question until a scientific research is done on the same.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

SID, you are still missing the point of my last paragraph.

It was intended to be a joking way of saying that people who want others to believe their counter-intuitive statements that they think are true need to do a far better job of explaining why they think those things are true. It is simply not convincing to tell people that you have studied it and therefore know more about it and they should just take your word for it.

And, I note from your original post that you seemed to be either somewhat mocking the 3 Nobel Laureates or inviting people to speculate that the universe is a simulation.

Does it signify sinulation hypothesis is real? If not, then does this disprove some of Einstein's claim to eventually disprove all of his work? If reality is observer dependent then does the proof say that consciousness is parent to every phenomena?

And you are the one who suggested it might be used to question Einstein's work, and then you accused me of doing that when I did not.

So, I don't know what sort of game you thought you would play here with this thread, but it seems that you are criticizing exactly what you started and trying to put your words into the interpretation of others' posts.

My take on this is mainly that people are playing games with the language being used to express concepts. For example "locally unreal", when put in the context of the experiment that spanned thousands of miles, would seem to involve everything on Earth, at least to a layperson. And I see no link whatsoever to the idea that the universe is a simulation, but you were suggesting such a link in your OP for this thread.

This whole thing is based on the concept of quantum state superposition. That concept is being rhetorically extrapolated by some to to imply that a subatomic particle is "unreal" until "observed" and the "collapse" of the quantum superposition is "action at a distance" once an observation is made, both of which I say are misleading terminology to people who have not really been educated about the special terminology being used for the actual concepts.

The really important aspects of quantum state superposition and superposition collapse due to observation is how that is used to explain paradoxes in observations of real phenomena. The Nobel prize award is based on intricate experiments that are trying to deal with difficulties of that theory, and seemingly have overcome them. See https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-2.pdf . But, that is a very long way from saying that experiments such as the double slit single photon diffraction experiment paradox is "unreal" or "observer dependent" when that experiment is reproduceable by all observers in this universe (at least our part of it here on Earth). I don't see any logical reason to try to extrapolate that into some concept that says that experiment would look different to others in other universes, or that other universes are created every time there is a superposition collapse due to an observation. But, some others keep writing articles to those effects - see https://www.space.com/spooky-action-at-a-distance-create-multiverse .

 

[Helio]

This thread helps show why “real” shouldn’t be a true argument for science. It belongs to the realms of philosophy and religion, IMO.

Theories are never proven. Further objective evidence, especially if predicted, either offers greater support for the theory, or will force a revision, if not a falsification.

I think of failed theories as being sent to Sillyville. Not a death sentence but confinement. New evidence may surface to get the theory out of town. The nebular theory for star formation is one example. Once things like MHD, observed bi-polar jets, etc. were realized, the angular momentum death nail was removed.

 

[SIDexplorer]

SID, you are still missing the point of my last paragraph.

It was intended to be a joking way of saying that people who want others to believe their counter-intuitive statements that they think are true need to do a far better job of explaining why they think those things are true. It is simply not convincing to tell people that you have studied it and therefore know more about it and they should just take your word for it.

And, I note from your original post that you seemed to be either somewhat mocking the 3 Nobel Laureates or inviting people to speculate that the universe is a simulation.



And you are the one who suggested it might be used to question Einstein's work, and then you accused me of doing that when I did not.

So, I don't know what sort of game you thought you would play here with this thread, but it seems that you are criticizing exactly what you started and trying to put your words into the interpretation of others' posts.

My take on this is mainly that people are playing games with the language being used to express concepts. For example "locally unreal", when put in the context of the experiment that spanned thousands of miles, would seem to involve everything on Earth, at least to a layperson. And I see no link whatsoever to the idea that the universe is a simulation, but you were suggesting such a link in your OP for this thread.

This whole thing is based on the concept of quantum state superposition. That concept is being rhetorically extrapolated by some to to imply that a subatomic particle is "unreal" until "observed" and the "collapse" of the quantum superposition is "action at a distance" once an observation is made, both of which I say are misleading terminology to people who have not really been educated about the special terminology being used for the actual concepts.

The really important aspects of quantum state superposition and superposition collapse due to observation is how that is used to explain paradoxes in observations of real phenomena. The Nobel prize award is based on intricate experiments that are trying to deal with difficulties of that theory, and seemingly have overcome them. See https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022-2.pdf . But, that is a very long way from saying that experiments such as the double slit single photon diffraction experiment paradox is "unreal" or "observer dependent" when that experiment is reproduceable by all observers in this universe (at least our part of it here on Earth). I don't see any logical reason to try to extrapolate that into some concept that says that experiment would look different to others in other universes, or that other universes are created every time there is a superposition collapse due to an observation. But, some others keep writing articles to those effects - see https://www.space.com/spooky-action-at-a-distance-create-multiverse .

I questioned and not claimed, I was skeptical and still am, I haven't challenged the trio.

I'm looking for opinion than a final answer, this thread is about discussion only, I very much know that no one can prove or disprove anything right here right away.

I didn't myself question Einstein's work, but the articles about locally unreal Universe mentioned such ideas, it was a headline in one of those 'Einstein was wrong... Etc... Etc... Will he be proven wrong entirely successively' and that kinda made me curious since I can't stand wordly negation of Einstein.

I was definitely looking for those who would mock Einstein and then I would second them, that's all I had in mind, it is no game, it's just that you can't describe what you are feeling before letting others opine about it.

The simulation argument is dragged here also because the articles I read had those discussed as a possibility.

And anyway, simulation argument is not considered non scientific, Neil deGrasse Tyson too has been discussing it with various scientists.

And ypu may have noticed from the first post that reading it would make anyone believe that I do believe what the trio have proposed and proved, I suggest you to read it again.

I'm supporting their claim but I'm worried about the long standing outcome and also the future of science henceforth.