Real and Unreal

In Physics by Brian Koberlein45 Comments

Quantum theory is strange, but very real. Through countless experiments we’ve found that quantum objects have both particle-like and wave-like properties. In some experiments the particle nature dominates, while in others the wave nature dominates. Some experiments can even show the effects of both properties. This duality between particles and waves in quantum theory is deeply counterintuitive, which means often the results of quantum experiments are interpreted incorrectly.

Take, for example, recent claims that reality doesn’t exist until we measure it. The claims arise from a recent experiment published in Nature that uses a single atom to perform what is known as the delayed-choice experiment. This experiment was first proposed as a thought experiment (gedanken experiment) by John Wheeler as a way of exploring the counterintuitive aspects of particle-wave duality.

Wheeler’s idea was to imagine a “cosmic interferometer.” Suppose light from a distant distant quasar were to be gravitationally lensed by closer galaxy. As a result, light from a single quasar would appear as coming from two slightly different locations. Wheeler then noted that this light could be observed in two different ways. The first would be to have a detector aimed at each lensed image, thus making a particle measurement. The second would be to combine light from these two images in an interferometer, thus making a wave measurement. According to quantum theory, the results of these two types of experiments (particle or wave) would be exactly as we’ve observed in their standard form. But the light began its journey billions of years ago, long before we decided on which experiment to perform. Through this “delayed choice” it would seem as if the quasar light “knew” whether it would be seen as a particle or wave billions of years before the experiment was devised.

Although the quasar experiment Wheeler proposed isn’t practical, modern experimental equipment allows us to perform a similar experiment in the lab, where the decision to measure a particle or wave is done at random after the quantum system is “committed.” For example, in 2007 a delayed-choice experiment was made using laser light to create a delayed-choice double slit experiment. In this new paper, the team used an ultracold helium atom to do a similar delayed-choice interference experiment. With both experiments the results were exactly as predicted by quantum theory. So both matter and light exhibit this strange quantum effect.

nYuzAo4While this is great work, the result isn’t unexpected. Quantum theory made a very clear prediction about this kind of experiment, and its prediction has been confirmed. Where things get fuzzy is in the interpretation. One popular way to interpret quantum theory is to presume quanta have a potential wavefunction, which then collapses into a definite state when observed. In this view the act of measurement gives reality to the quantum. In the delayed-choice experiment that would mean the quantum doesn’t become “real” until you measure it, which could be billions of years after its origin in the case of quasar light. But this is an overly simplistic take on things. Quantum objects are real, but simply have indefinite properties. These properties are defined by the experiments we do. What the delayed choice experiments really show is that quanta don’t exist as particles or waves, but are truly unique objects which can exhibit particle and wave properties in certain experiments.

While that might seem strange, it isn’t magical or mystical. The Moon wouldn’t vanish from existence if everyone closed their eyes, and reality isn’t dependent upon us observing it.

Paper: A. G. Manning, et al. Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom. Nature Physics, DOI: 10.1038/nphys3343 (2015)

Paper: Jacques, V. et al. Experimental realization of Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment. Science 315, 966–968 (2007).

Comments

  1. If we use the word “quanta” when we write about non-collapsed entities, then it avoids the loaded terms of “wave” and “particle”, so the physics can be framed without misinforming readers.

  2. In most all aspects of our lives, we are far better served by treating the sun as rising and setting, and the world as being flat (when we need to use a Google maps), and species as being separate, even though we know each of these is not “really” the case. In some unusual contexts however, “real” ontology matters and then, we need to acknowledge the earth’s rotation, globe shape, and shared evolution.

    I propose we assume a consistent, similar view of particles, spacetime, etc. as fine to treat as real for most of our lives, but not ultimately real in special contexts where it can crucially matter, just as we would above. That is: as we treat our current object concepts in our physics paradigms as we do those of other, past scientific paradigms. This would give a view of particles, spacetime, etc. are not really “real”, but observational consequences of the way we observe and measure things.

    From such a perspective, detection of a particle or wave attribute is unproblematic. Under such a view, duality doesn’t violate the law of non-contradiction, realism is preserved, and the Copernican Principle is not violated. Such a view is also consistent with what we know about how scientific revolutions occur. It offers the kind of domain within which theoretical reduction can take place. These seem to comprise a non-trivial list of benefits.

    The article implies accuracy in predicting later observations and measurements is evidence that what we observe and measure are fundamental aspects of reality, and cannot be emergent from more basic structures.

    No matter the decimal place accuracy of its predictions, we would not regard accuracy as legitimately supporting geocentrism, although its followers would. Therefore, standard model claims of this form seem to be a kind of special pleading fallacy.

    Is there a principled case to be made for regarding these observations and measurements as demonstrating proof of ultimate reality that when applied with an even hand, support certainty of standard model interpretations and assumptions and rule out stuff we’ve abandoned long ago?

  3. I read an article about this experiment done in Australia that said due to the results we must entertain the idea that future events determine what happens in the past. Though feasible i would be more inclined to say that this experiment sheads light on the strength of quantum entanglement. Is it not likely that at the quantum level the particles “knew” that the second screen was going to be inserted therfore chose whether to be “wave” or “particle” form? I am no physicist or scholor of anykind, just curious about the world around me.

  4. Well this is all very confusing to the layman. I remember reading, a couple of years back, an article in “Scientific American” stating that ‘physicists now agree that the only reality is observations’ – which is much the same as saying that the only reality is consciousness.
    Then I read other articles saying that there IS a ‘real’ universe but it consists of ‘quantized fields’. Then I read yet other articles criticising the ‘quantized field’ idea as a sort of loss of nerve – an inability of certain physicists to cope with the fact that consciousness (“observations”) is all that exists, therefore these physicists must invent some sort of indefinable ‘material stuff’ (“quantized fields”) to reassure themselves that there realIy is a real reality ‘out there’ somewhere.
    And of course IF the universe DOES consist of ‘quantized fields’, then it would indeed continue to exist if all consciousness in the universe were extinguished – but it wouldn’t ‘look’ like anything at all because there would be no conscious minds to turn the ‘quantized fields’ into something resembling the reality which we experience – or even that which microbes experience. The universe would just exist as a mass of mathematical probability distributions, not light or sound or smell or texture or anything resembling ‘matter’. My brain hurts.

    1. LOL. A great summary. The way I’ve come to look at it is this: there is consciousness, which has experiences; and there is a set of rules governing those experiences, which science seeks to elucidate. Currently we conceptualize those rules, in part, as quantum objects described by a probability wave function. Maybe we could say that this ‘set of rules’ exists independently of the conscious experiences subject to those rules. But that won’t satisfy many people, who still want something ‘physical’ – a word which I think has steadily lost meaning.

  5. “Quantum objects are real, but simply have indefinite properties.”

    I don’t think that statement has any meaning. In it, the word “real” is simply being redefined, to support the view that some sort of realism must be true. Actually it might be correct to say that the word “real” lacks any non-circular definition in this context. It’s merely a placeholder; insert your own concept – or vague feeling – in it’s place.

    1. Author

      The term “real” is generally taken to mean that it actually exists (as opposed to imaginary). Quantum objects are real in that sense. Electrons exist. Protons exist. They also have indefinite properties.

      1. I feel the same way about the word “exists” – it has no meaningful non-circular definition. Basically “exists” means “is real” and vice versa.

        I invoke the conceivability argument: we can’t conceive of something having no definite properties. We have no way to think about it. But maybe your position is that quantum objects have some definite properties, and some indefinite ones?

        Yes, you can distinguish something as being “real” rather than a product of someone’s imagination – but I think that’s another context shift. It amounts to saying that an object is perceived by everyone – it’s part of our shared reality.

        1. Author

          Quantum particles do have definite and indefinite properties. Electrons have definite charge and rest mass, for example. Any word can seem to have a circular definition if you push it hard enough. Everything in the dictionary is defined by words which are themselves defined by other words. So that’s a weak argument. When we say that quanta are real, that is accurate in the common sense of the word. The precise description is mathematical in nature.

          1. I think the idea of quantum objects that have some intrinsic and well-defined properties, but some that take on values only as part of an observer’s experience, is already moving us away from realism, towards some form of idealism. But it’s too easy to get locked into 19th-century ideas of “realism” and “idealism”.

            Maybe we agree on this: when we consider things like these delayed-choice experiments, we realize that our concept of “real” has to evolve.

      2. Reality could work like a video game. For example let’s say you have three rooms..room A, room B, and room C. John is in room A room b is empty while bob is in room C. While no one is in room B our video game computer doesn’t have process the information for room b which is saved until our video game characters go in room b. Let’s say John in room A and decides to go into room b, as he goes from a to b the computer stops processing room a and processes room b. Now room A is empty and doesn’t really exist however the information of what John did in that room is “stored” for future reference. While John is in room B he brings a tennis ball from room a and puts it down on a table in room b then walks back to room a. Bob in room C decides to go to room B when Bob goes from room C to room be the computer stops processing information for room C and renders the information for room b while Bob is in room B he sees the book that John left behind. Conclusion from this is that the moon is and isn’t there. When no one is looking at it the information is stored until an “observer” observes.

        1. Hey Brian could you fix that comment up lol meant to say a tennis ball was left behind not a book. At work rushing to make a comment

  6. Hi Brian, I know this post is old now but there was something I read about delayed choice experiments showing that the future can affect the past, however from what I’ve read apparently this is wrong and the future cannot affect the past, it just looks as if it does?

  7. “At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. (Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html#jCp)

    Brian, I take it that, in your opinion, Associate Professor Truscott’s view of the matter is “overly simplistic?” I am sure the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering would beg to differ…

    1. Author

      Yes, the statement is overly simplistic. What defines the “one” looking for example? Truscott is talking about measurement in the lab, and that the measurement defines the system. What that means in the broad is still a matter of discussion. It would be ridiculous to claim, for example, that the Moon doesn’t exist unless humans are looking at it.

      1. I admire you for sticking to your guns – I suppose, in your article, I was looking for acknowledgement that there are competing interpretations, often contradictory (as with yourself and Truscott), which can make researching quantum physics rather confusing (as the some of the replies above demonstrate).

        I quite agree that it would be absurd to claim the moon doesn’t exist if we all closed our eyes, but would it be quite so ridiculous to question whether the moon would exist if the universe did not contain a conscious observer? This is more of a philosophical question, of course.

        I agree also that there is nothing ‘magical’ going on (in the literal sense of the word), indeed these are truly natural phenomena. However, as for ‘mystical’ – to quote your illustration, “I do not think it means what you think it means”. Whether the quantum world or, indeed, the world of everyday life are ‘mystical’ is entirely a subjective impression, not a scientifically-verifiable fact.

        1. Author

          Despite the quotes from Truscott, the actual scientific results have been “quantum mechanics works as we expect.” There isn’t the disagreement you think there is. The whole “conscious observer” idea is a misnomer, and is not how quantum theory works.

  8. “Quantum mechanics works as we expect” – indeed, I concur entirely, this is the accepted understanding of the theory in its practical application. However, I don’t agree that there is little or no disagreement about the wider interpretation of quantum theory.

    As theoretical physicist Professor Jim Khalili says: “Basically, while the mathematical construct that is quantum mechanics is not much in doubt these days, what it MEANS (the interpretation of the theory) is still up for grabs. There’s the Copenhagen view, Bohmian mechanics, the Multiverse interpretation, the Transactional theory, spontaneous wave function collapse theory…) We don’t know which of these is right.” (http://www.jimal-khalili.com/blog/einsteins-nightmare.html)

    Whether or not our friend Truscott was guilty of over-simplicity in his interpretation of the results of his experiment, we can safely say that the discoveries of quantum physics have challenged our Classical notions of reality, at the level of the very small at least (e.g. entanglement, non-locality). Yes, it is “strange” – it is deeply mysterious and I don’t think this point should be underestimated.

    PS My point about the moon was more philosophical in nature – could the moon be said to exist in a universe devoid of consciousness, when any notion of ‘existence’ is defined by the very consciousness that would be lacking in such a universe?

    Thanks for the replies, by the way.

  9. Does this mean, all manners in which quanta characteristics are observable, simultaneously exist just like movie frames; and different perspective-points/observation-methods determine which characteristics we observe? Or other analogies such as viewing HTML-code versus the pixeled web-page and/or viewing individual pixels(particles-of) versus the full-screen (wave)?

  10. I am always confused as to the difference between an unobserved dual slit experiment, which results in an interference pattern and an observed dual slit experiment which results in what we would expect to see. As the very nature of either experiment requires us to eventually observe the results then how can either be considered unobserved?

    1. I think where i am headed is how can there be such a concept as before, now and later with an artifact that is moving at the speed of light…..doesn’t this mean that to the photon all concepts of time don’t exist, that every time is now ???

  11. Yeah, it does tell us what quantum mechanics predicts is true. And quantum formalism doesn’t include any physical particles. It only includes math that predicts a result.

    This experiment proves there is no objective reality, or reallly no particle before it’s measured. The only realist explanations are untenable. There is no physical particle existing with undefined properties before measurement. That’s a delusion. Experiment proves that if there are any physical objects in these experiments, then they are moving faster than light. Not possible. Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues have concluded in further experiment that there are no physical objects in these quantum experiments.. The logical result (not interpretation) of this experiment is that there is no objective reality before we measure it.

    Does this mean the moon doesn’t exist if it’s not being measured? No. The particles don’t exist even when they are measured. They just must be rendered to us when we look for them, but when we don’t look, the default answer is a probability distribution. The effects are still real enough even when we don’t look. The moon is also not there, and when nobody is looking it’s not being rendered, but the effects of a moon are still rendered.

    1. Way in over my head here – but this statement: “The logical result (not interpretation) of this experiment is that there is no objective reality before we measure it.” would seem to say that all reality is subjective – but in either case, what is being measured?

  12. If our experiment is set up to measure particles, we get particle results. If we measure for waves, we get wave results. Just means that particles have some characteristics of both.I really can’t see any problem here at all (except limitations in human thought processes).

  13. I fail to see the dilemma in Wheeler’s Delayed Decision thought experiment, at least when talking about light. When we look at the experiment, when we change the design of the experiment to switch between measuring particles and waves, it appears to us that the packet of light energy must have made the decision about whether to behave as a particle or as a wave a billion years before we made the decision which form we were going to measure. However this paradox of changing history only occurs when we look at things from the point of view of the experimenter.
    When we view things from the perspective of the light, there is no dilemma. Light, I believe, travels at the speed of light. So with the effects of time dilation, from the light’s perspective, the rest of the universe is in suspended animation. The universe does not age at all during the billion years of time that the light took to travel from its source galaxy to the experiment’s detector. That must mean that from the light’s perspective, the universe, including the set up of the experiment, was exactly the same when it left the galaxy as when it hits the experiment’s detector. So yes, the light did know exactly how the experiment was set up when it left its galaxy.
    The odd thing is that we see the light taking a billion years to get here from its source, meaning that we think we have aged a billion years since it left, when from the light’s perspective the surrounding universe did not change at all. Even stranger is that if we could have observed that light throughout its billion years’ journey, we would see that it does not age at all throughout its journey while the light will have perceived that it has aged a billion years over the journey.
    So it appears to me that the odd thing going on is nothing to do with changing history but how we perceive time.
    The fact that the same effects are observed with massive particles (as opposed to the massless particles such as photons) is stranger as these particles won’t travel at the speed of light, so they will age and perceive the universe ageing around them. Yet the same delayed decision process occurs.
    This does beg the question “What is Time?”

  14. So let me get this straight…. your argument is if everyone closes their eyes the moon would still be there? If that’s correct try thinking of it like this…. closing your eyes is to consciousness is what putting a lens cap on is to a camera. Either situation the observer (consciousness) has simply put blinders on momentarily. Your moon experiment would work (nothing would exist) if everyones concisinous vanished forever. And since that’s a silly thing to do please tell me your article is not debunked if you believe that and I’ll try my best to explain this again

  15. Thank you for this, it explains what’s wrong with the coverage of that experiment and other quantum theory experiments that I couldn’t quite put my finger on!! Yes!

  16. So, does retrocausality really exist, or are they misinterpreting or misrepresenting the results of these delayed choice experiments? Does this prove that a future event can effect a past event?

  17. I like the way you have described this, but I wasn’t aware some people actually believed that things, such as the Moon, would actually cease to be (implying a “loss” of something “material”) if nobody was observing it! Some people look way too far into it, others it seems might not look deep enough because they will outright claim it is “silly” to include consciousness at all in an interpretation of quantum physics.
    The way I have interpreted these experiments, and I’m not a scientist at all so I could be wrong, is that: the act of perception by a “conscious” observer (anyone or even any device capable of “acknowledging” this information) “unfolds” the wave form information that describes the object and allows us to interact with it (and the rest of the world) If everyone is to stop looking at it, it would then not possess three dimensional, “physical” qualities as long as that remains the case. The “matter” would revert to wave form information.
    an analogy is how a DVD only displays the movie when the laser is “looking” at the waves on the disc and “unfolding” them into “reality” (tv screen). The only problem I Can see with this interpretation, is how do we know that something else entirely isn’t causing the three dimensional world to unfold, because of course we can’t obviously see it when we aren’t looking at it!

  18. As a non scientist i am part of the fascinated confused. Is it not the case though that the the double slit, delayed choice and quantum erazer experiments are significant in that they all restrict or block information. ie a particle is only seen or observed when we know the path that the particle took. When we do not have that information or that path information is erazed, then we observe the wave like nature of quanta. similarly Heisenburgs uncertainy principle seems only an equation to create a knowledge rule that we cannot know the position and velocity of a particle precisely. Information in these examples appears [from my unlearned vantagepoint] only relevant to consciousness. The quantum erazer experiments appear to show, that it is not the physical prescence of measuring equipment that colllapse the wavefunction but the presentation of which way information to a conscious entity. Likewise the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is not a physical restriction as is sometimes proposed but an information rule/law . Hopefully anybody reading this would accept consciousness is real, if not it is an illusion and illusion is a property of consciousness. therefore the biased stance sometimes expressed that consciousness could hold any relevance to these experiments seems a little unfair. The ridicule implied in the statement [it is ridicoulous to imagine the moon is not there if consciousness is not observing] is possibly harsh when many aspects of quantum physics appear ridiculous technicaly described as counter intuitive. No criticism to anybody is intended in this post, merely trying to get my head around a fascinating subject.

  19. Quote: “The Moon wouldn’t vanish from existence if everyone closed their eyes, and reality isn’t dependent upon us observing it.”

    According to the “Simulation” model of the universe espoused by many physicists, including Tom Campbell who discusses these effects at length on YouTube …. there is is no physical reality, i.e. no moon. The physical and temporal only exists as a ‘virtual’ programmed reality within which individuated units of consciousness (ourselves) EXPERIENCE THIS VIRTUAL REALITY as though it were real. Virtual reality exists in the consciousness of the creating system and the consciousness of the player (a conscious being experiencing the virtual reality) ONLY. This reality is probabilistic and (as in quantum experiments) a particular value is selected from a probability function by the act of observing a (virtual) physical object, so …. if no consciousness had observed the moon it would only exist as a probability distribultion within the virtual reality (i.e. it would have no particular existence at all. It would be a programmed but ‘potential’ moon awaiting its manifested being within the virtual reality). Once observed its physical nature is set/seleced at that moment and it will continue to evolve according to the (Gravitational/Laws of motion/mass-charge attribution) RULE SET within the programmed conscious reality that defines the system.
    As in a computer game with a virtual moon, in this (our) reality there is no moon, there is no space, nor time … all that exists is the program, individuated consciousnesses (our minds) and the illusions we came here to experience.
    This model makes sense of quantum anomalies and is therefore, in my opinion, the best model of physical “reality” we have, as yet.

  20. His analysis is coherent and makes sense. Yours doesn’t. It just makes an unfounded assertion. Therefore, until you come up with a credible justification for your assertion or a definitive rebuttal of his theory it is reasonable for the rational person to assume that he is rght and you are wrong.

    1. Author

      Campbell uses quantum woo to sell self-published books and raise kickstarter funds. When he makes a clear and testable assertion we can talk about the validity of his claims. Until then it is reasonable for a rational person to assume he is wrong.

  21. So when real experiments in the physical world yield results that contradict our fundamental assumptions about physical (e.g. when effect is observed to precede cause) we must continue looking for a material cause for this anomaly rather than suspect that there is some ‘big picture’ element absent from our understanding of perceived reality? This sounds to me like the protestation of a “flat earther” before humanity was introduced to Newton’s Law of Gravity. The offhand adhominems add to this impression.

    Some of history’s very greatest physicists ‘got it’:

    Max Planck (in 1931): “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

    Schrödinger: “Some of you, I am sure, will call this mysticism. So with all due acknowledgement to the fact that physical theory is at all times relative, in that it depends on certain basic assumptions, we may, or so I believe, assert that physical theory in its present stage strongly suggests the indestructibility of Mind by Time.”

    Pauli favored a hypothesis of “lucid mysticism,” a synthesis between rationality and religion. He speculated that quantum theory could unify the psychological/scientific and philosophical/mystical approaches to consciousness

    Neils Bohr said: “THERE IS NO QUANTUM WORLD. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”…and to Wolfgang Pauli: “Your theory is crazy, the question is whether it’s crazy enough to be true.”

    It is extremely unlikely that the blinkered stubborness of die-hard materialists (even with the aid of a political elite who use materialism as a weapon against their subjects in order to blind them to to their own connection to and relationship with the Divine) will win the day in this argument.

    1. Author

      You keep making incorrect and unfounded assertions. To begin with, an ad hominem is an attack on a person personally, not their ideas. So calling Campbell’s claims “quantum woo” isn’t ad hominem. Calling you a “vacuous troll” would be. Second, quoting famous scientists does not support your claim. It’s a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority: If great scientists made statements that seem to support my claims, then surely I must be right! That’s not how science works. Lots of eminent scientists have gone of the deep end making wild claims that were completely wrong.

      Not surprisingly, you see this fallacy a lot in Campbell’s work, and it clearly demonstrates that he doesn’t understand quantum theory. The quotes you cite are largely from the early period of quantum theory, when we were still trying to figure out what all of this meant. They were putting together ideas to see how to form a quantum framework. But we’ve now had a century to do better experiments and we now know the “conscious observer” idea fails to hold up. Campbell conveniently ignores these, and instead focuses on philosophers to buttress his woo.

      We could discuss details further, but I don’t suspect you’re really interested in that. Nice touch, by the way adding the conspiracy theory that scientists are “…a political elite who use materialism as a weapon against their subjects…” You win today’s pseudoscience bingo.

      As I mentioned earlier, when Campbell is ready to act like a scientist, then we can talk.

    2. Just a brief comment and question about materialism and realism. If one operates from the belief that to be real is to be material, then all these apparent paradoxes are unavoidable. But when we are measuring something, we are measuring “something” – Can we in fact measure something that does not exist?

  22. You are not even honest. Calling Campbell’s work “quantum woo” is the same as the slithering way you called me a “vacuous troll”, You implying an absence of intellectual rigour while failing to specify in any challengeable detail where Campbell’s argument and theory fails. You PROJECT your own “woo” onto others suggesting that their ‘failure’ to grasp the issues is a matter of CHARACTER.
    I didn’t say that scientists are a political elite who use materialism as a weapon. I said something that every sensible person, never mind scientist, knows … that the establishment that fund science and everything else, fund those things to serve their own interests and agenda. This agenda includes despiriritualising humanity and denying any connection to the Divine, a condition of mind that causes potential resistance to their propaganda and potential refusal to co=operate with their placemen authorities.. Every scientist I know understands what to bear in mind when chasing research funding and unfortunately you are a wilfully moronic, dishonest c*nt whose only discernable currency is abuse of those who disagree with you. Tou are a prick, a huckster and a fraud and the kind of person I am glad that I don’t know.

    1. Author

      “This agenda includes despiriritualising humanity and denying any connection to the Divine” It is amazing how popular this trope is. It’s the ignorant claim that simply will not die. Do me a favor, send an email to the director of the National Institutes of Health (geneticist Francis Collins), and ask him if he believes in God. Or Antony Hewish, Nobel Laureate in Physics, or Brian Kobilka Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, or John Gurdon, Nobel Laureate in Medicine. Or tons of other people who are both scientists and Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or any of several other believers in a connection to the Divine. If there really were an agenda we wouldn’t put them in positions of power, or give them Nobel prizes.

      “your a wilfully moronic, dishonest c*nt”… That’s Dr. wilfully moronic, dishonest c*nt to you.

      God bless your heart.

  23. I am requesting to get an answer about why when one is running,his or her wavelength cannot be measured.

  24. I don’t exactly agree that anyone has to observe anything for reality to exist. The experiments are conducted with sensory equipment not human beings, the results would be the same regardless of every living thing being alive or not. For example, if an experiment was conducted such that the experiment were to be performed in an hour from now, on an off-planet, completely sterile, autonomous laboratory, and President Trump blew planet earth to kingdom come by setting off all of the US’s nukes at once in the next 30 minutes — my bet is that the results would be the very same. That being said, not a single living thing discovered thus far would be around to confirm the results.

  25. Hmmm. I and others depend upon sites like this, and there does seem to be an inexplicable materialist bias. Superposition really actually does defy words such as ¨exist¨ or ¨real,¨ and there is absolutely nothing ¨quantum woo¨ about that. Zeilinger and Wineland are not able to be dismissed as easily as Planck, Bohr, and Schrodinger are here, in challenging locality and/or realism. Might want to look into Hoffman at UCI too. I came to a more serious understanding of nature as a strict materialist sort. It is the science that has blown me away abd changed my views, not the woo. I save locality by following causal set theory. I tend to agree with the poster up above who invokes the ¨for all practical purposes¨ view of science when it comes to governing life and resources, but some high-profile scientists who invoke expertise in some domains of nature to comment on the deeper mysteries of existence are using a model that is worthless at some energies. ¨Indeterminacy¨ is superposition and not subject to the meaning of exchange with surroundings that define reality as we conceive it.

Leave a Reply