New quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question

[Admin]

Physicists have found a new paradox in quantum mechanics that throws doubt on some common-sense ideas about physical reality.

New quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question : Read more

 

[rod]

Very interesting report here on QM and *observed reality*. I enjoy *observing* using my telescopes. On 05-September, I was out from 2000 - 2300 EDT. I viewed Jupiter's Great Red Spot rotate into view and by 2218 EDT, the Great Red Spot crossed Jupiter's central meridian. The predicted time for Jupiter's Great Red Spot crossing the central meridian at Jupiter was published by Sky & Telescope web report and September magazine, page 50. The waning gibbous Moon and Mars ascended in the east sky in Pisces, about 1-degree angular separation and was very enjoyable to view.

Q: Based upon this report by space.com, are my telescope observations showing reality in nature or something else?

 

[Geoman]

What controls an ant colony? Ants colonies are very sophisticated structures. Ants perform multiple duties, and will change their "jobs" as necessary. But ants have only 250,000 neurons. Far too little to actually "think" or "decide". The answer is the virtual super intelligence - ant behavior is governed by very simple rules, and the interaction of those rules creates an ant colony intelligence that controls the colony.

If ants interacting and controlled by very simple rules, can do it, why not something even smaller? Like individual particles?

What if the individual particles are part of an emergent super intelligence that is created by the interaction of the particles, and is designed to determine the maximum entropy and information generated in the system. The mistake is to assume that the only observers are the people. Each particle is also an observer, and will decide to change it's properties in accordance with the rules of the universe as determined by the emergent super intelligence.

Once you grant each particle with the power to "decide" it all becomes quite simple. Each particle displays a very narrow, but almost unfathomably huge, super intelligence. Each particle is calculating the correct state it needs to be in at any time using fundamental laws.

 

[rod]

The space.com report here ask "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perhaps not, some say."

My observation. A philosophy of science is reported in the space.com report where *objective reality* can never be known. Applying the QM view of reality in this report to my telescope observations I documented in post #2, looks like QM provides a view of nature where what I observed was not *objective reality* but perhaps, something else. For example, Jupiter's Great Red Spot just appears to follow a predictable path, similar to Mars rising along with the Moon in Pisces. There could be another reality here that I was viewing following the QM view of science in the report it seems thus a geocentric universe could also be reality, as well as the Earth is flat.

 

[Helio]

The space.com report here ask "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perhaps not, some say."

But notice the final statements by those scientists...

"All of this does not imply that you can choose your own reality. Firstly, you can choose what questions you ask, but the answers are given by the world....

Which means that if we both witness the same tree falling and you say you can't hear it, you might just need a hearing aid."

Science is objective based. Theories are falsifiable. Many theories that keep passing the tests because they produce the same reliable results over and over. At some point laws are formed, which is what engineers want to have.

What we call "truths" and things "real" are side issues from science. They are philosophical terms, and not to be taken as serious science terms. Science is a conversation with nature. If everyone with normal hearing hears a tree fall then maybe they physics the describes that fall is worthy of application to our world. I don't think any are saying that some trees are silent when they fall.

My observation. A philosophy of science is reported in the space.com report where *objective reality* can never be known.

That's reasonable when we are trying to stretch science to become real, as if an absolute. We take many things to be real, of course, but science isn't allowed, IMO, to go beyond their own magesteria.

For example, Jupiter's Great Red Spot just appears to follow a predictable path, similar to Mars rising along with the Moon in Pisces.

Right, but if every telescope from all locations can confirm a match, you now have objective evidence to help decide what it is everyone is seeing.

There could be another reality here that I was viewing following the QM view of science in the report it seems thus a geocentric universe could also be reality, as well as the Earth is flat.

A flat earth model is a scientific one, thus it can be falsified, and has been to the point it has been sent to Sillyville. Thus, they too will be regarded as actually being silly (at best).

A geocentric model, if taken only on a mathematical basis, does work since choosing a different reference frame here or there isn't a violation, at least on a math level. On a physics level, however, the model must present objective evidence that present causation for the effects observed. Since the gravity model does such an incredibly nice job for our favored model then a modified geocentric model is only useful for working on projects on or near the Earth itself.

 

[rod]

It seems some are hand waving here attempting to avoid the many references to measurement and reality in the space.com report and paper. The space.com does say near the end "What does it all mean?
Although a conclusive test may be decades away, if the quantum mechanical predictions continue to hold, this has strong implications for our understanding of reality — even more so than the Bell correlations. For one, the correlations we discovered cannot be explained just by saying that physical properties don't exist until they are measured. Now the absolute reality of measurement outcomes themselves is called into question. Our results force physicists to deal with the measurement problem head on: either our experiment doesn't scale up, and quantum mechanics gives way to a so-called "objective collapse theory", or one of our three common-sense assumptions must be rejected."

*the absolute reality of measurement outcomes themselves is called into question.* I see no difference made here between the quantum universe and macro universe, perhaps they are all entangled and no objective reality exist - seems the intent and direction here

 

[John R MacDaddy]

The solution to this so-called 'quantum paradox' of entangled photons seems rather simple to me.
The answer lies in DARK ENERGY. Science hasn't caught up to how 'entangled' our baryonic universe is with Dark Energy. Science has only (relatively) recently realized photons travel in waves, not singly. The medium photons use to travel through is Dark Energy. That is the missing 'connection' between the 2 observed photons. When one photon is 'measured', this destroys the entire wave and therefore all associated photon particles. Imagine a bolos (Spanish throwing weapon). Now imagine the leather attaching the balls is invisible Dark Energy. When one ball hits something, the other is obviously affected. Same with photons.
I'm fairly convinced that stars and planets absorb dark energy and heat and light is the byproduct. This is why a distant, small moon or planet can have a molten core. It's not gravity generating the heat by itself. Of course, science is hobbled by the limitations of their Scientific Method when trying to measure or observe something that is invisible and untouchable.

Mod Edit for Content

 

[Helio]

It seems some are hand waving here attempting to avoid the many references to measurement and reality in the space.com report and paper.

It's not hand waving, it's finger pointing, but not at you. I'm trying to show that science doesn't go in the direction of arguing for absolutes or what is "real".

The space.com does say near the end "What does it all mean?

Right, and "meaning" is a philosophical question. It may lead to a new scientific model at some point, to be fair, but they aren't stating one now that I can tell, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it's something to look for in the future superior to Bell.

They aren't saying, apparently, that any specific macro model (e.g. GR) is in question, and they even suggest a hearing problem to properly explain why one may not hear the tree fall.

*the absolute reality of measurement outcomes themselves is called into question.* I see no difference made here between the quantum universe and macro universe, perhaps they are all entangled and no objective reality exist - seems the intent and direction here

That claim may be fair in philosophy, but, as I'm trying to emphasize, science doesn't deal with absolute realities. Things either work or they don't. Science is fine with formulating new models or tweaking others to make them work for us, if they are falsified.

 

[ARTGLICK]

The "tree in the forest" analogy is a poor choice when dealing with QM. A sound is scientifically defined as the vibration of air molecules (or some other medium) and that vibration occurs whether or not a human listener is present. How dare we puny humans think that our presence or contribution is required for something to exist?

On the other hand, there's no way to divorce the nature of the observer from the nature of their perception, even in the macro world. Do you hear "yanny" or "laurel"? What color is the dress, really?

 

[rod]

FYI. The report here cites the paper and we see in the report, "Quantum mechanics vs. common sense...When someone observes an event happening, it really happened. It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices. A choice made in one place can’t instantly affect a distant event. (Physicists call this “locality”.) These are all intuitive ideas, and widely believed even by physicists. But our research, published in Nature Physics, shows they cannot all be true — or quantum mechanics itself must break down at some level."

Applying to the macro universe we have the trend now in science that indicates a theory can never be falsified unless there is perhaps a preponderance of evidence. 'The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth It’s time we abandoned the notion', https://www.scientificamerican.com/...qEZ0POqqg2cx6zp2PDb9fnqFqXKHXUC5KZUifShYOvw6Y, 07-Sep-2020

The space.com report cited 'A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox'. "Does quantum theory apply at all scales, including that of observers?..We discuss how this new theorem places strictly stronger constraints on physical reality than Bell’s theorem."

Perhaps like the QM cat is dead and alive at the same time, the earth can be flat and round, the Sun can move around the Earth and the Earth can move around the Sun. I like observing the Galilean moons with my telescopes. However, it seems what I think I see, may not be what *really happened* now

 

[Helio]

FYI. The report here cites the paper and we see in the report, "Quantum mechanics vs. common sense...When someone observes an event happening, it really happened. It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices. A choice made in one place can’t instantly affect a distant event. (Physicists call this “locality”.) These are all intuitive ideas, and widely believed even by physicists. But our research, published in Nature Physics, shows they cannot all be true — or quantum mechanics itself must break down at some level."

Yes, the QM world is bizarre, but the macro world less so. But the mechanics of QM offers very reliable results, else it would not be respected as it is.

Applying to the macro universe we have the trend now in science that indicates a theory can never be falsified unless there is perhaps a preponderance of evidence. 'The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth It’s time we abandoned the notion', https://www.scientificamerican.com/...qEZ0POqqg2cx6zp2PDb9fnqFqXKHXUC5KZUifShYOvw6Y, 07-Sep-2020

Agreed, the veracity of the falsification must be considered. The Jesuits were quick to end a 2000 year model that claimed Venus orbited between the Earth and the Sun as soon as the "preponderance of the evidence" justified the falsification, though it was troubling to do so. There were some who argued that their (built by Galileo) telescopes were faulty, and some of the early ones were problematic. But the quality of a telescope can be tested terrestrially as well. Once all the phases of Venus were clearly observed, they had enough evidence and they agreed the model was debunked.

The key is to reach a reasonably clear picture of just how strong the falsification claim truly is. It is more difficult to falsify things indirectly, such as how, when and where fossils should form.

Perhaps like the QM cat is dead and alive at the same time, the earth can be flat and round, ...

Well, it doesn't hurt to consider that statement. GR may agree with you (slightly) since the Earth can be considered to be traveling in a straightline that just happens to bring us back to where we were last year. The important point is to understand how the models work, and how they don't. [A separate thread on why Flat Earth models are falsified might be fun.]

 

[sb5k]

Edwards' Many Worlds interpretation looks better and better.
No one forgets what happened - they are just in a different "world".

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

The paper tries to make some hay out of that the non-locality that show up already in Bell tests experiments is more severe in these entanglement experiments. But there is still no relativistic light cone causality destroying signal mediated here but the same type of correlations that still needs observers comparing observations to recognize them.

As one may suspect, it seems like quantum field theory has non-local states entanglement as an explicit feature of vacuum states [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeh–Schlieder_theorem ]. (String physicist Witten goes as far as to claim "it is a property of the algebra of observables and not just of the states" [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.04993 ].)

C.f. the idea of "locality" as used in the paper, which is not what we see. Relativistic light cone causality depend on locality for light cone signals, no more and no less, and that is what quantum field theory express (however pesky it is to tease out on a background of obscuring non-local "algebra" properties).

If you are interested in the general misappropriation of Wigner's Friend models, computer scientist Scott Aaronson is your friend [ https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975 ].

Quote:
It's hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain
"Unperformed measurements have no results." —Asher Peres
Quote:
I was sufficiently interested (or annoyed?) that I pulled an all-nighter working through the argument, then discussed it at lunch with Renner as well as John Preskill. I enjoyed figuring out exactly where I get off Frauchiger and Renner's train—since I do get off their train. While I found their paper thought-provoking, I reject the contention that there's any new problem with QM's logical consistency: for reasons I'll explain, I think there's only the same quantum weirdness that (to put it mildly) we've known about for quite some time.

In more detail, the paper makes a big deal about how the new argument rests on just three assumptions (briefly, QM works, measurements have definite outcomes, and the "transitivity of knowledge"); and how if you reject the argument, then you must reject at least one of the three assumptions; and how different interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Bohmian mechanics, etc.) make different choices about what to reject.

But I reject an assumption that Frauchiger and Renner never formalize. That assumption is, basically: "it makes sense to chain together statements that involve superposed agents measuring each other's brains in different incompatible bases, as if the statements still referred to a world where these measurements weren't being done."

I don't know if the new paper makes the same assumption, but I would guess it may do. For me it doesn't matter (so I didn't check) since there doesn't seem to be any problem with quantum field theory relativity, as expected.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

The mistake is to assume that the only observers are the people.

It's unclear what "mistake" you refer to, but observation in quantum physics is referring to a state change. That can be caused by many means.

A philosophy of science is reported in the space.com report where *objective reality* can never be known.

Exactrly - its is factless philosophy (superstition). Facts are objective and robust, however a philosopher wants to define his or her "reality" - that's why we can have science. However much you insist on the paper interpretation and that criticism is handwaving, assuming the paper is correct (it isn't, see my first comment here), you don't add anything that rejects that.

As for the effects you claim to derive from the paper discussed in the article, quantum field theory remains valid (see my previous comment).

... It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices. ...
Applying to the macro universe we have the trend now in science that indicates a theory can never be falsified unless there is perhaps a preponderance of evidence. 'The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth It’s time we abandoned the notion"

This is more superstition.

"Free choice" started as a theological construct (re superstition - but personally I group philosophy and theology together), but nature has no choice but to be a result of a process ("follow laws" at various scales).

Falsification was an attempt by a philosopher to straitjacket a naive philosophical idea onto mundane statistical testing. But even in that naive sense it doesn't capture the competition that we use between equally valid ("unfalsified") theories. And on and on. I like the article but I don't agree with the title (picked by some editor) as much as with the text where it is described as other historical "myth-story" and so I don't agree that "science studies (comprising the history, philosophy and sociology of science)" are describing science.

What we need is a science of science. Noether's theorem describing laws and statistical testing are a start, as is the current research on research and publication uncertainty, biases and result robustness.

What we call "truths" and things "real" are side issues from science. They are philosophical terms, and not to be taken as serious science terms. Science is a conversation with nature.

Well said!

I reserve facts for describing the objective and robust (repeatable) findings we derive from nature.

But I certainly doesn't need to define "real" or "reality". What use would it have? What other tests can I do that I didn't already made on facts and on nature?

Truth values are meted out relative to your axiom system in both philosophy (meaningless speculation) and math (tools that we select as useful) or even personal opinion at times. And famously you can't axiomatize physics, you need to observe it (as shown by, say, renormalization theory).

The solution to this so-called 'quantum paradox' of entangled photons seems rather simple to me. The answer lies in DARK ENERGY.

The rest of your comment is very confused - dark energy is the vacuum energy in the standard cosmology and space is not a medium (but can be filled with such). But this fragment suffice to show you don't discuss the article.

 

[Grinning Bandicoot]

You do realize the implications of your hypothesis. This super intellect being extent in four known demensions reaches back to First Cause among other things.

 

[David-J-Franks]

I think most here seem to agree on objective reality, i.e. we agree with the first of the three common-sense statements at the beginning of the article.

• "When someone observes an event happening, it really happened."

So, to stick with this the get-out clause is provided with -

"Our results force physicists to deal with the measurement problem head on: either our experiment doesn't scale up, and quantum mechanics gives way to a so-called "objective collapse theory", or one of our three common-sense assumptions must be rejected."

I'd rather choose 1 or both of these than give up reality. So, yes rod, I believe you did see Jupiter.

I've got a problem with the second common-sense statement

• "It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices."

I believe in determinism and so believe there's no such thing as free choice or random. So I can reject that one, but how it makes a difference to the experiment I'm not sure.

As for the third statement

• A choice made in one place can’t instantly affect a distant event. (Physicists call this “locality”.)

I agree with no such thing as instant, but it can't be ruled out that there's some underlying faster than light effect that's not been discovered yet, which would explain entanglement. (such as the subspace communication used in star trek). So in a way, it's not completely unreasonable to also reject this third statement as well.

Too many grey areas here. I'm off to buy a telescope to see if rods telling the truth

 

[David-J-Franks]

Quantum computers use entangled particles in states of supposition called qubits, which are in a state of supposition of 1 and zero at the same time. It's very difficult to maintain the entanglement of the qubits, the supposition is easily collapsed by heat and noise from the environment, so the system has to be cooled and carefully isolated. When this technology first started it was only possible to manipulate a few qubits, this rose to hundreds, and now, I think the latest is 10,000 atoms can be entangled.

I'm thinking if it's this difficult for a few atoms to be entangled, then it's impossible for cats, trees, forests and humans to be in a state of supposition. The experimenters have eluded to this with their statement-

"either our experiment doesn't scale up, and quantum mechanics gives way to a so-called "objective collapse theory", or one of our three common-sense assumptions must be rejected."

I don't think it will scale up, so no makeover for reality just yet

 

[Atlan0001]

A truly titanic supernova occurs 10,000 light years from Earth. Earth resides directly, temporarily, between it and the Andromeda galaxy. The collapsed horizon of the universe resides, say, 14 billion light years from the Milky Way and Andromeda. We observe the awesome nova to occur 10,000 years after it occurred. Earth is planet A. Observers from planet B in the Andromeda galaxy observe it to occur 2.3 million years afterward. And so on and on through millions and billions of years, light years, until an observer on planet C at a distance of, say, 12 billion years, light years, observes some sort of very dim nova-like event to have occurred in some early galaxy 12 billion years, light years, distant, or 2 billion years, light years, this side of the collapsed horizon of his universe.

What occurred? A nova. Where? Some far, far distant earlier galaxy in time. Where(???) / When(???), relative to the distant [collapsed] horizon from him, not relative to the observer? Twelve billion years, light years, from him, the observer, and two billion years out from his Big Bang collapsed horizon event? Very much further and it, and its galaxy, would have disappeared into a point horizon from his universe (as things do (apparently) appear into (from points) and disappear (into points) from universes).

The other day I watched the YouTube video on Betelgeuse's dimming and the astronomer physicist saying that the star [might] one day just collapse, if collapse it does, into itself far enough into a point to just disappear from the universe altogether. Would that "disappearance" be into a distant point (to be zeroed out) from the microcosm as well as being into a distant point (to be zeroed out) from the macrocosm? By "universe" I assume he meant both.

The matter-mass would infinitely 'crunch' itself enough to 'hole' itself and disappear into the hole, macro- [and] micro-cosmically. Would it be side stepping, bypassing, quantum mechanics? Either of the above scenarios though differing as to what kind of point horizon? Both scenarios? Though I know quantum mechanics does deal in a form of time reversal.

 

[Helio]

What occurred? A nova. Where? Some far, far distant earlier galaxy in time. Where(???) / When(???), relative to the distant [collapsed] horizon from him, not relative to the observer? Twelve billion years, light years, from him, the observer, and two billion years out from his Big Bang collapsed horizon event? Very much further and it, and its galaxy, would have disappeared into a point horizon from his universe (as things do (apparently) appear into (from points) and disappear (into points) from universes).

The disappearance is more like not being able to hit the back of a school bus with a snowball if you throw it at 30mph and the bus has reached 31 mph by the time it got close. A galaxy beyond our horizon becomes only unobservable once it is moving faster than the speed of light, due to expansion. It is still in our universe but we can only imply things are normal for them, just as they would imply the same for us. The question becomes philosophical since it has left the bounds of objective science.

The other day I watched the YouTube video on Betelgeuse's dimming and the astronomer physicist saying that the star [might] one day just collapse, if collapse it does, into itself far enough into a point to just disappear from the universe altogether. Would that "disappearance" be into a distant point (to be zeroed out) from the microcosm as well as being into a distant point (to be zeroed out) from the macrocosm? By "universe" I assume he meant both.

Supernovae often produce blackholes but they don't disappear from the universe, but they do become invisible to direct observation. We can "see" them, however, as they have a powerful influence on anything close to them, including light that zips by them.

 

[Atlan0001]

The disappearance is more like not being able to hit the back of a school bus with a snowball if you throw it at 30mph and the bus has reached 31 mph by the time it got close. A galaxy beyond our horizon becomes only unobservable once it is moving faster than the speed of light, due to expansion. It is still in our universe but we can only imply things are normal for them, just as they would imply the same for us. The question becomes philosophical since it has left the bounds of objective science.


Supernovae often produce blackholes but they don't disappear from the universe, but they do become invisible to direct observation. We can "see" them, however, as they have a powerful influence on anything close to them, including light that zips by them.

That is not what he said nor what he meant. He was quite clear in both. Nor what I was saying or what I was meaning.

Yes, things can travel faster than the speed of light [non-locally], non-relative to the local observer, but never locally. Anything can travel faster than the speed of light by the simple process of moving away from a departure point. The more distance gained from it, the less that light can keep up from such a 'non-locality'. Physics, including the speed of light and every other constant, will be holding their own [locally] to both observers and travelers (both being the same, locally). Departure point and traveler are dividing away from each other into two different universes, each unobservable from the other. Far enough into one of those point horizons and the traveler would not know which of an infinity of point horizons to return to his departure point from. He would have traveled beyond a Big Bang event horizon, which would be a constant horizon a constant distance from him. Just like us, he is a time traveler as well as a space traveler. Relativity, at its boundary lines of collapse (and it does have boundaries and it does collapse), can be just as weird as quantum mechanics. The two may even merge in their weirdness, in such a commonality, at such a point.

 

[mach0017]

What is "sound"? I can't believe all the "scientists" who fumble the ball with this question. Sound is the molecules of air set in motion when one object collides with another object. One object might be a tree falling and colliding with the ground, or a guitar string being plucked by a fingernail and simply vibrating in the air. (Is this an analogy to a photon being both a particle and a wave?)

Those air molecules are moving whether a mechanism that can interpret the movements (an ear, for example) is present. If that isn't clear, my answer is, yes, the sound is there whether anyone or any thing is present to "hear" it.

 

[mach0017]

What is light? Photons are the particle form of light, but what is the wave property of light? Is it the motion of photons as they travel? The energy property of the particle?

That is not what he said nor what he meant. He was quite clear in both. Nor what I was saying or what I was meaning.

Yes, things can travel faster than the speed of light [non-locally], non-relative to the local observer, but never locally. Anything can travel faster than the speed of light by the simple process of moving away from a departure point. The more distance gained from it, the less that light can keep up from such a 'non-locality'. Physics, including the speed of light and every other constant, will be holding their own [locally] to both observers and travelers (both being the same, locally). Departure point and traveler are dividing away from each other into two different universes, each unobservable from the other. Far enough into one of those point horizons and the traveler would not know which of an infinity of point horizons to return to his departure point from. He would have traveled beyond a Big Bang event horizon, which would be a constant horizon a constant distance from him. Just like us, he is a time traveler as well as a space traveler. Relativity, at its boundary lines of collapse (and it does have boundaries and it does collapse), can be just as weird as quantum mechanics. The two may even merge in their weirdness, in such a commonality, at such a point.

 

[David-J-Franks]

What is light? Photons are the particle form of light, but what is the wave property of light? Is it the motion of photons as they travel? The energy property of the particle?

A photon is a force carrier particle, it mediates the electromagnetic force, one of nature's fundamental forces. the other 3 being the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force and gravity. When acting as a wave it propagates both as an alternating electric field and magnetic field both at right angles to each other. This is why it can cause interference patterns etc. Experiments can observe it behaving sometimes like a wave and sometimes as a particle, but never both at the same time. That's why it's called wave-particle duality.

In the waveform, it is exactly of the form as a radio wave etc and has a spectrum between low-frequency radio waves up to gamma rays. The polarization of EM radiation refers to the plane the wave is alternating in, and polarised light means its fields always alternate in the same plane.

If that's not enough, particles are not the most fundamental elements of nature. All particles have a quantum field associated with them, it's the fluctuation of these fields which give rise to the particle, and it's these fields which are fundamental.