Does reality exist when we're not looking?

[admin]

In quantum physics, particles exist in many states at once until you measure them. Can reality really work that way?

Does reality exist when we're not looking? : Read more

 

[George Rinker]

Nice. But I think you overstate by saying there's been no success at bridging the quantum and classical worlds. This is discussed briefly in the following link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364306784_Existence_reality_and_perception_in_classical_and_modern_physics

This goes into more detail about much of your subject here. The reference to semiclassical physics refers to work done at Los Alamos in the late 1980's in calculations for the bright source laser project, calculations that involved realistic atomic models driven by intense laser fields into regions of state space that were nearly continuous, where the classical response became dominant in spite of the fact that the atomic calculation was purely quantum mechanical.

 

[HoveringGoat]

I think there's a misunderstanding of "measurement". Really all it is is expanding of a quantum state. Think of it this way: Everytime there is a quantum interaction those two states "merge" into a larger state. Outside of these states we can only describe them by the quantum field. But once we're inside them they collapse. This is "measuring" them since we're now in the same state. That's all there is.

 

[George Rinker]

I think there's a misunderstanding of "measurement". Really all it is is expanding of a quantum state. Think of it this way: Everytime there is a quantum interaction those two states "merge" into a larger state. Outside of these states we can only describe them by the quantum field. But once we're inside them they collapse. This is "measuring" them since we're now in the same state. That's all there is.

The term "measurement" is a leftover from the early days when it was their only contact with their experimental results. I agree that it's now an outdated term with misleading connotations too often taken far beyond its actual meaning. In a modern sense, "measurement" of a system has to include any interaction with another one, since that seems to be the only way around the ridiculously egocentric attitude it otherwise implies.

 

[davejones39]

"In a strict reading of quantum mechanics, the cat is neither alive nor dead at this stage; it exists in a quantum superposition of both alive and dead. Only when we open the box will we know for sure, and it's also the act of opening the box that allows that superposition to collapse and the cat to (suddenly) exist in one state or the other."

Our CERTAINTY about the cat's survival is open. But, that doesn't make the cat both dead & alive.

Put enough food & water in the box. Don't open the box. If after a week it stinks, the cat is dead. It isn't dead 'suddenly' because of anything we do.

It seems ego- (homo-) centric to think that everything happens because of our actions. When I die, things will keep happening -- clearly; some cats will die, some will not, without my opening anything. Let humans become extinct. The remaining cats will live or die. We who have shuffled off this mortal coil may not know it. But our failure to open the cat's box has nothing to do with its survival.

 

[Smirfnybln]

In quantum physics, particles exist in many states at once until you measure them. Can reality really work that way?

Does reality exist when we're not looking? : Read more

"Can reality work that way".
How do we define "reality"? We believe what we perceive to be real and define what we perceive by sets of characteristics and their behaviors.
This assignment of characteristics exists by perception. If no one ever observed an unknown phenomena either directly or by theoretical inference; how can it be said that phenomena exists?
Even though unicorns only exist through the imaginary, the concept of exists just like flight and other inventions did. They are measured by the power of observation even if they exist purely theoretical. We understand purely imaginary concepts like philosophy, stock markets and national boundaries to be real?
So there's the universe. We're looking at it. Because we're looking at it we can say it's there.
We can imagine if all humanity and life on earth were extinct that the universe would be there.
We can only imagine that because we are here observing it right now.

 

[KYLE54545]

The issue with saying all of this, is that our perspective is compromised from the start. Quantum Mechanics says nothing about the laws themselves, it is only a predictive mathematical construct, we use in looking at things beyond the classical realm. It's the same as singularities in General Relativity, just because it appears from that prospective doesn't make it so, when the result itself is absurd. Just saying it's probably us, not the universe with the problem!

 

[KYLE54545]

"Can reality work that way".
How do we define "reality"? We believe what we perceive to be real and define what we perceive by sets of characteristics and their behaviors.
This assignment of characteristics exists by perception. If no one ever observed an unknown phenomena either directly or by theoretical inference; how can it be said that phenomena exists?
Even though unicorns only exist through the imaginary, the concept of exists just like flight and other inventions did. They are measured by the power of observation even if they exist purely theoretical. We understand purely imaginary concepts like philosophy, stock markets and national boundaries to be real?
So there's the universe. We're looking at it. Because we're looking at it we can say it's there.
We can imagine if all humanity and life on earth were extinct that the universe would be there.
We can only imagine that because we are here observing it right now.

You can define consciousness? If the universe is one giant quantum computer, could it itself have consciousness? Sean Carroll thinks that all there is, is the wave function. Well... how can the wave function cause itself to collapse through observing itself, if its all that is ? How can you be an observer, when phenomena had to be observed in the first place for you to exist and observe? I tend to like Max Tegmark's thoughts on the matter. Existence is pure math, and we experience one of many existances.

 

[rahullak]

We're part of the system that we're trying to observe. We're made up of aggregates of particles which are in continuous interaction with the world, even the so-called isolated experiments. There is an element of subjectivity that cannot be removed. Even if all scientists agree on the results of an experiment, this does not mean the results are "objective". It's like trying to guess what a room looks like from the outside when one has always been in the room and has no conception of a room.

 

[JoeAtiyah]

God must find it exceedingly odd
When he sees that this tree
Continues to be When there's no one about in the quad

Sir, your astonishment is odd
I am always about in the quad
Which is why this tree Continues to be
Since observed by yours faithfully, God

 

[kev01]

I reproduce verbatim from a forum posting elsewhere:
Quote:
"For example, if you shoot a beam of electrons through a magnetic field, half of the electrons will curve in one direction while the other half will curve in the opposite direction. While we can build mathematical descriptions of where the electrons go as a group, we cannot say which direction each electron will take until we actually perform the experiment."

Doubly wrong. Charged particles like electrons will curve just one way - in accordance with the classical Lorentz force law. What the confused writer probably meant was neutral particles having an intrinsic magnetic moment. Then - IF the applied magnetic field has a particular divergent geometry - and the initial trajectory follows an appropriate relative orientation - then a Stern-Gerlach experiment type of spin dependent 'integer' path splitting follows.

I agree with the total inapplicability of Schrodinger's cat as a conceivable alive-dead superposition 'paradox'.

 

[KYLE54545]

We're part of the system that we're trying to observe. We're made up of aggregates of particles which are in continuous interaction with the world, even the so-called isolated experiments. There is an element of subjectivity that cannot be removed. Even if all scientists agree on the results of an experiment, this does not mean the results are "objective". It's like trying to guess what a room looks like from the outside when one has always been in the room and has no conception of a room.

A measurement must be taken though, the act of measurement is the observer. Which is just a way of saying interference. It is that interference that gives us a measurement, and QM is only a predictive mathematical construct, that says nothing about the laws themselves. We don't understand how that interference influences anything, really. I'd just point to the quantum eraser as proof of that. All we know is what we see from our particular vantage point, which we know lacks major detail. Is it that the wave function proves multiple worlds and outcomes, or is it more likely our understanding is flawed? We seem to believe that singularities are an error in general relativity, that the method isn't capable of processing that kind of information. We have no idea if that the case, with what the author is trying to argue in the article.Schrodinger put forth the cat to show this, not to say that it was true... Which really shows Socrates as the real genius, when he said " I know that I know nothing ."

 

[rahullak]

Life is an ongoing process with intelligence behind it. Modern science seems to reject subjectivity. Assumes that if a law exists then it must be experimentally verifiable by any person following the scientific method. No room for subjectivity. But what if this assumption is flawed? What if there are one or more laws which are yet uncovered which can explain the gaps in modern science today but where the assumption does not hold true?