Physicists Disagree Wildly on What Quantum Mechanics Says About Reality (nature.com) 91
A Nature survey of more than 1,100 physicists reveals fundamental disagreements about quantum mechanics' relationship to reality, despite the theory's century-long track record as one of science's most successful frameworks. The survey, conducted to mark quantum mechanics' 100th anniversary, found 36% of researchers favor the Copenhagen interpretation while 17% prefer epistemic approaches that treat quantum states as information rather than physical reality.
Another 15% support the many-worlds interpretation. Researchers split evenly on whether a boundary exists between quantum and classical worlds -- 45% said yes, 45% said no. When asked about the wavefunction's nature, 47% called it a mathematical tool while 36% considered it a representation of physical reality. Only 24% of respondents expressed confidence their chosen interpretation was correct, with others viewing their preference as merely adequate or useful in certain circumstances.
The survey contacted over 15,000 researchers whose recent papers involved quantum mechanics, plus attendees of a centenary meeting on Heligoland island. Despite quantum mechanics enabling technologies from computer chips to medical imaging, physicists remain divided on the physical reality underlying the mathematics.
Another 15% support the many-worlds interpretation. Researchers split evenly on whether a boundary exists between quantum and classical worlds -- 45% said yes, 45% said no. When asked about the wavefunction's nature, 47% called it a mathematical tool while 36% considered it a representation of physical reality. Only 24% of respondents expressed confidence their chosen interpretation was correct, with others viewing their preference as merely adequate or useful in certain circumstances.
The survey contacted over 15,000 researchers whose recent papers involved quantum mechanics, plus attendees of a centenary meeting on Heligoland island. Despite quantum mechanics enabling technologies from computer chips to medical imaging, physicists remain divided on the physical reality underlying the mathematics.
I both agree and disagree (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I both agree and disagree (Score:4, Funny)
Your cat is shaking in a corner, hoping you never answer.
Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:5, Insightful)
Quantum mechanics is a mathematical description of reality.
The tricky confusion comes in trying to answer the question "what does it mean?" The answer seems to be, it means that if you follow the equations using the correct approach, it will give you answers that are correct.
David Mermin tagged the approach to the question actually used by physicists the "shut up and calculate" approach.
Q: What does it mean?
A: Shut up and calculate.
Re:Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the fundamental mistake that is made, and it is a very natural one, is that humans can actually understand reality. There simply was no survival value in having an intuitive grasp of quantum mechanics so it just did not arise in nature. The senses we have evolved to have work only in a very narrow band in the scale of the universe, and so our neural nets never see quantum effect or cosmic effects.
But we do very well in the world in which we actually live, and that leads to the feeling that we can actually understand anything.
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:3)
i think it's good to question whether reality is even understandable in the QM regime, but i think you weaken your point by appealing to survival value. there's loads of things which had no survival value back when we were hunter-gatherers but which we're pretty good at. driving cars, for example. understanding electromagnetics. playing piano.
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:2)
Magnets, how the fuck do they work?
Seriously though, car driving is based on things which are good for survival that we were already good at. And the controls evolved to match those skills, we didn't evolve to be better drivers. We started out with a collection of levers loosely connected to the activity and now we have mostly wheels and buttons, and the levers we operate with our feet aren't really operated like levers either.
Re: (Score:2)
Try this one: how does light propagate through a transparent material? If you think that's obvious, then explain why it slows down entering a denser material (obvious!?) but speeds up again on exit. OK, clock is ticking, let's see some answers.
Re: (Score:2)
The heliocentric solar system, orbital mechanics...
We knew how to predict sunrise and the phase of the moon before we learned why they happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but we've been working on the QM mystery for more than a century with basically zero progress on the interpretation questions.
Re: (Score:3)
You can develop an intuition for quantum mechanics if you play with it enough. In the same way you develop an intuition for gravity, although maybe not always intentionally. In the same way you develop intuition about anything you develop intuition about.
Our senses are well suited to observing quantum mechanical effects, especially those involving light. We can see light without needing special instruments. (I say although I do wear spectacles.) There is a lot of fun to be had with polarised glasses an
Human understanding of reality is limited (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll push back on this a bit.
No, our senses don't see quantum effects, unless you mean "everything we see in nature is ultimately built on quantum mechanics, so everything is a quantum effect," which makes the statement true but trivial. We see light, but we don't see the quantum nature of light: we don't experience single photons. Polarization is completely a classical effect. Polarization in quantum mechanics works on the single-photon scale differently from polarization in classical mechanics; the two are identical when we look at a large enough ensemble of photons to do statistical averaging, making the quantum nature get averaged out, which is exactly what we see: we do not see any of the quantum-mechanics effect when we look at polarization unless we work hard at setting up an experiment to show single photons.
Re:Human understanding of reality is limited (Score:5, Interesting)
we don't experience single photons.
It doesn't really affect you argument, but under the right laboratory conditions it is possible to see a single photo. [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I'd call "in a very complicated experimental set up, if two photons hit the observer's eye within 8 seconds, the observer can correctly detect the second photon 60% of the time, slightly but significantly better than the random guess probability of 50%" a convincing refutation of "we don't experience single photons."
Re:Human understanding of reality is limited (Score:4, Informative)
The human eye can detect individual photons. [ucr.edu]
Polarization isn't really classical. You see a quantum-only property of it when you look at an LCD screen with polarized sunglasses. [libretexts.org]
Also, magnets [mpl.mpg.de], lasers [iop.org] and fluorescence. [wikipedia.org]
Pretty much everything white has fluorescent dye in it. Peacock feathers [science.org] are lasers.
Re: (Score:2)
Peacock feathers [science.org] can be made into lasers.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I will repeat my original statement: "No, our senses don't see quantum effects, unless you mean "everything we see in nature is ultimately built on quantum mechanics, so everything is a quantum effect," which makes the statement true but trivial."
In more detail:
The human eye can detect individual photons. [ucr.edu]
The very first paragraph of the link you gave says that while retinal cells react to single photons, we don't see them.
Polarization isn't really classical.
Polarization is completely classical. It is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations, predating quantum mechanics by fifty years
Re: (Score:2)
You experience the quantum nature of the photoelectric effect whenever you try and dim an LED bulb with an old fashioned dimmer. There are lots of people who rant on the internet about it.
What do you mean by "it takes quantum mechanics to explain lasers and magnets, but we don't experience the quantum nature of them." This statement doesn't really make sense. I suspect what you mean is that we don't normally experience specific contrived situations that are purposely chosen to seem weird. This is true. It's
Re: Re:Human understanding of reality is limited (Score:2)
I'm not sure if we disagree or not. In a sense, of course, everything we see or experience is quantum mechanical in nature. If you pick up a marble, the reason that you can pick it up, and it doesn't pass right through your hand, is Pauli exclusion, a quantum effect. For that matter, you don't fall right through the substance of the Earth because of quantum mechanics. When I say we don't see quantum effects, I mean we don't see quantum effects that are different from the everyday classical physics that we s
Re: Human understanding of reality is limited (Score:2)
Have you searched for visible quantum effects?
---
Here's a more detailed look at some visible quantum effects:
Macroscopic Quantum Superposition:
In 2010, physicists observed quantum superposition in a macroscopic object â" a tiny, vibrating strip of metal that could be seen with the naked eye. The strip, about the size of a human hair, was found to be in a superposition of oscillating and not oscillating states simultaneously.
Quantum Tunneling:
Quantum tunneling, where particles pass through barriers even
Re: (Score:2)
Photosynthesis is very, very quantum. Not much classical about it at all.
Expression, not Understanding, is Limited (Score:2)
No, our senses don't see quantum effects, unless you mean "everything we see in nature is ultimately built on quantum mechanics, so everything is a quantum effect," which makes the statement true but trivial.
The problem is that quantum effect already has a clear definition which, as you say, renders the statement both true and it is trivial. What I suspect you mean is an observable effect due to quantum mechanics that is different to what is predicted by classical physics. Even then though we can easily see effects that can only be explained by quantum mechanics.
We see light, but we don't see the quantum nature of light
Actually we do because most of the light we see is reflected light that shows a particular colour because of the quantized absorption of certain wave
Re: (Score:2)
You can develop an intuition for quantum mechanics if you play with it enough. In the same way you develop an intuition for gravity
Yes, exactly.
Like all the physicists in ancient history.
And like Sir Issac Newton.
And they were all totally wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's no particular reason to think we can't "understand" QFT. As mentioned in the summary, there are several equivalent interpretations and you can choose your favourite depending on which set of properties you hold dearest.
Most of the confusion comes because
1) people are taught quantum mechanics, which is wrong
2) people don't understand what a wavefunction is. Not the interpretation of it, the actual hard mathematical "this is what it is."
3) the Copenhagen interpretation quite remarkably claims "here th
Re: (Score:3)
3) the Copenhagen interpretation quite remarkably claims "here there be magic" in the form of wavefunction "collapse," something that is not only entirely unprecedented but also causes a whole bunch of other problems that make up most of the wierdness attributed to quantum theory.
The idea that a sentient being needs to observe for the collapse to happen is junk pseudoscientific nonsense. Of by observer it’s meant any interaction with any particle over a certain threshold then it’s just as accurate as any of the other interpretations. That is it’s a guess that is fairly accurate as to what is happening, even if it’s obvious it’s not a complete theory. The most interesting thing to me about the interpretations is how differently they can describe what
Re: (Score:2)
The really interesting thing to me is that none the the interpretations is predictive. More or less by definition.
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:2)
"people don't understand what a wavefunction is. Not the interpretation of it, the actual hard mathematical "this is what it is.""
Except that doesn't exist, you have to approach quantum effects through probabilities. That makes it literally the opposite of what you said!
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of quantum mechanics is probabilities, far from it. Einstein's original discovery of quantum energy levels is a good example, these energy levels are precise, they are not random. Another great example: all protons have the same mass. Not the same mass plus some random fudge factor. Exactly the same mass. If that doesn't astound you then... well then, left as an exercise for the interested reader.
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:1)
How does Trump do so very well in the world in which we live while denying scientific reality?
Re: (Score:2)
Science makes his denial of science possible. Specifically, the science behind the technology he uses for his constant shitstream of denial, conspiracy theories, and sexting his daughter.
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:2)
So if I use technology to create money by expanding balance sheets on both sides and using hype and lies to put off final settlement for another day indefinitely, does that mean science can be used to create something out of nothing?
Understand vs. Explain in a Language (Score:2)
I think the fundamental mistake that is made, and it is a very natural one, is that humans can actually understand reality.
Sorry but that is nonsense because we demonstrably can understand reality and the marvels of the modern age that suround you are clear and unambiguous evidence of that. The problem with Quantum mechanics is that it is far removed from the everyday reality that every human language, except mathematics, was developed to describe. Hence the only difficulty with QM is trying to explain it in human language.
We not only understand QM and can absolutely describe it prceisely mathematically to the extent that i
Re: (Score:2)
Do lasers and microchips imply that we fully understand reality? Certainly they imply we understand parts. Can you point me to an article where I can read about how conscious experience arises and its causal relationship with the physical world? In addition I'd like to know why pain feels bad, since the structure of the universe doesn't have subjective values, and certainly doesn't care whether I cut my finger.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the fundamental mistake that is made, and it is a very natural one, is that humans can actually understand reality.
Then who can understand reality? I am thinking the answer is "cats". They understand reality. Which is why they seem testy and uncooperative and sulk a lot.
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:2)
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot experiments show that the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics is true - and for now, no upper limit for the size of the system following the rules of quantum mechanics have been found.
Well, yes and no. While I'm personally sure that quantum mechanics works at all scales, do note that the largest system that has been exactly solved in quantum mechanics is the hydrogen atom: two components. The quantum state of the helium atom, even in the ground state, has never been solved, although we can do finite-element approximation. This tends to get left out in your physics courses. The mind-boggling complexity of the quantum state of a cat is way beyond our comprehension (not even getting to the human observing the cat).
--
*(To be fair, the three body problem has not been solved in the general case for classical mechanics, either, but at least we have some exact solutions.)
Re: (Score:2)
The quantum state of the helium atom, even in the ground state, has never been solved, although we can do finite-element approximation. This tends to get left out in your physics courses.
In highschool courses yes, but I’m not so sure about college level courses. I had to take a physics course as part of my requirements when I was an EE undergrad and we worked through the hydrogen atom (simplistically in one dimension) and had to formulate the wave function. It was made clear by the professor that simple closed form solutions don’t exist for anything more complex but perhaps I got lucky and had a knowledgeable professor.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes and no. While I'm personally sure that quantum mechanics works at all scales, do note that the largest system that has been exactly solved in quantum mechanics is the hydrogen atom: two components. The quantum state of the helium atom, even in the ground state, has never been solved, although we can do finite-element approximation.
Finite element approximation is a numerical method to calculate accurate solutions to partial differential equations. Most such equations will not have "closed solutions", but this doesn't diminish the accuracy of the solutions provided by FEM. You can not find a closed solution for the movement of a playground swing either, but you can calculate it to arbitrary precision numerically. Nobody would claim, though, that "we haven't found a solution to playground swing movements". The same thing applies to heli
Re: Quantum mechanics: a mathematical description (Score:2)
"It's not unusual in science to use something that's been observed to work without understanding how it works"
Why did geologists get away with rejecting continental drift for many decades, "because ot had no mechanism"? Are geologists just bad scientists?
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that, yeah, geologists are pretty bad scientists. After all, isn't that why they went into geology?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the (hermitian) matrix can be more real than this world
All I have to do is make a diamond dagger sandwich here and there you have to watch the cat die
or live.. whatever, I made it happen with some matrix sandwich of some sort
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly. If you do not get to unexpected or extreme circumstances, the math will typically give you reliable predictions. Otherwise it may not.
The problem is that people confuse the math (quantum mechanics here) and physical reality. Math is just a modelling tool with limitations and inaccuracies. Reality is the only absolutely accurate thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you love it when a slashdotter confidently posts the answer to a question that has so far defeated all the greatest minds that human history has ever produced?
Unsurprising (Score:5, Insightful)
While a lot of complaints are made, and justifiably, that some more modern Theories and hypotheses aren't testable, there are a lot of aspects of Quantum Physics from the turn of the twentieth century that are likewise untestable. Youtube channel Kurzgesagt just posted a video on the Many Worlds interpretation that frankly left me annoyed, because it itself demonstrated confirmation bias while claiming that it was proof of the Theory. Normally I really like their videos, but this one left me doubting that they had done as much research on the topic as they claim to do.
The problem is that they can do a whole bunch of very useful mathematics that can lead to results, but that doesn't mean that the intermediate steps in the math are as ultimately true as the final result appears to be. Remember, at one point humanity thought Newton was right, but subsequent math from Einstein demonstrated a better mathematical model to match observations. The mathematics in some aspects of Quantum Physics might well match observations well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't better mathematical explanations for what we see that that humanity hasn't managed to devise.
When aspects of Quantum Physics can be experimentally demonstrated, like quantum tunneling, then it's fairly safe to conclude that those aspects are largely settled, but for things like Many World, the concept of the collapse of the wave function, even the definition of the term "observer", it becomes harder to take some claims especially seriously.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:4, Insightful)
"Remember, at one point humanity thought Newton was right, but subsequent math from Einstein demonstrated a better mathematical model to match observations."
Newton WAS right, Einstein didn't invalidate Newton. All theories have limitations, some more limiting than others.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Interesting)
The orbit of Mercury [wikipedia.org] would disagree that Newton was, strictly speaking, right.
Isaac Newton was one of the smartest human beings to ever live, but even he acknowledged, "if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
He knew how he got where he did scientifically and he knew that others would come after him that would improve upon the knowledge that he himself had improved upon. There's no shame in having created the best, most rational explanation for something, and explanation that stood for hundreds of years as best, before an even better explanation could be devised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unsurprising (Score:2)
Have you done a search on "Did Newton know that observations of Mercury's orbit in his day were problematic for his theory of gravity?"
---
Yes, Newton was aware that his theory of gravity had a problem accurately predicting the orbit of Mercury. While Newton's theory provided a good approximation for most planetary orbits, the observed precession of Mercury's perihelion (the point in its orbit closest to the Sun) didn't perfectly match the calculations based on Newton's laws. This discrepancy, though small,
Newton Deservedly Wrong (Score:2)
Its kind of unfair to him to say he was wrong.
No it is not. Not knowing that you are wrong does not mean that you are not wrong. Ignorance is bliss, not being right all the time.
Besides, while Newton was definitely an incredible genius he was also an utter bastard - look up sometime how it dealt with Leibntiz and Hooke - so it is not only fair to say he was wrong, he very much deserves to be called wrong, even if you do have to admire his genius.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't dispute that.
The trouble is, there are still folks who think that, "the observer" means consciousness. The term "observer" itself is a problem. The double-slit experiment demonstrates that quantum effects are more than just interaction because arguably the slit assembly as a filter is an interaction, but the "observer" seems to be a slightly more involved interaction.
Of course, the word, "Theory" was also a bit of a poor choice because those who wish to dismiss science will use, "it's just a theory!" as if decades of research and experimentation to come up with the most plausible explanation to-date can be dismissed as easily as the rambling ill-conceived conclusions of someone with no background or education.
yes, I'm aware I'm arguing about semantics now, but unfortunately so are a lot of other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is, there are still folks who think that, "the observer" means consciousness. The term "observer" itself is a problem. The double-slit experiment demonstrates that quantum effects are more than just interaction because arguably the slit assembly as a filter is an interaction, but the "observer" seems to be a slightly more involved interaction.
The idea that a sentient being is required likely has a religious background to it, or at the very least demonstrates the self centered narcissistic belief that physics is different for human brains. The less insane interpretation is the observer is any particle that interacts with the system past a threshold (more or less). A human experimenter, by contact with or communication with the experiment becomes part of the macroscopic system through basically the same interaction.
The whole premise resides o
Re: Unsurprising (Score:2)
"decades of research and experimentation to come up with the most plausible explanation to-date can be dismissed as easily as the rambling ill-conceived conclusions of someone with no background or education."
Is this why geologists fought Wegener's theories tooth and nail, using all sorts of unscientific excuses like "it has no mechanism" even though neither does entanglement which was accepted nonetheless at the time?
Is science really just about feeling mood affiliated with the current arbitrary, fickle so
Re: (Score:2)
Is science really just about feeling mood affiliated with the current arbitrary, fickle social consensus?
I don't know if it goes in both directions, but prevailing theories of physics tend to lead philosophical thought. The whole idea of post-modernism is just the theory of relativity as applied to human thought and behavior rather than physical reality. I don't know exactly where quantum mechanics plays out in philosophy but I have to assume skibidi toilet is in there somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
"Observer" simply means "environment". This is one of the areas where we genuinely have made progress in understanding quantum mechanics. It's now well understood that wavefunction collapse is caused by decoherence, which is to say, the system becoming entangled with its environment. It doesn't matter whether the environment includes a human, a cat, a computer, whatever. Any macroscopic object works equally well.
What is entanglement? That's still a thorny question. We have lots of ideas for what the a
Re: (Score:3)
I just wanted to throw in my $0.02 on the philosophical issues.
A "person" includes a (complete) brain, which is built out of billions of neurons. The neurons must operate together "in concert" in order for the person to be functional. For someone to have a single coherent thought, many neurons must fire correctly, in response to their inputs, while many other neurons abstain from firing (equally correctly).
So, if neurons had "free will," they could just fire (or not fire) whenever they felt like it, with
Re: (Score:2)
Newton's Universal Gravitation was observably wrong at its instantiation, and Newton himself had reservations about its fundamentals.
I would grant you a pass if merely tracking the movement of a planet wouldn't have demonstrated that the limit for the theory wasn't even useful for predicting the motions of the planets.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Einstein did invalidate Newton. Because the Einstein model has border conditions and error-bars for classical mechanics that Newton did not have and hence many predictions from Newton went out the window. It also nicely demonstrated that you cannot rely on unverified predictions from models.
The deep flaw in Newton was that at that time, people did not realize all models are limited and are not truth. Most people do still not realize that today and even quite a few scientists have that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to remember that models (i.e. math) are always ever only an approximation. Even if they test out, you can never even come close to testing everything and you often will miss things that would invalidate the model. And in the untested areas a model may well predict complete crap that has no connection to reality. People tend to forget that models are only a tool and not an accurate representation of reality. Hence only things that are tested can be expected to be somewhat reliable and only under the
Theoretical field mired in theories. (Score:2)
This is a shocking revelation.
I hope these survey results make their way to Hollywood. I can't wait for their highly accurate interpretation of these disagreements. Maybe they can get Paul Rudd to explain it to us?
9% of respondent playing silly buggers (Score:3)
[QUOTE]
Does a measurement require an observer?
9% Yes and they must be conscious.
[/QUOTE]
mathematical tool or representation of reality? (Score:2)
"When asked about the wavefunction's nature, 47% called it a mathematical tool while 36% considered it a representation of physical reality"
It's hard to take this seriously. It is either both or neither and anyone surveyed would understand that. Either this is gross malpractice or the survey itself is too poorly constructed to be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Tails, you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It definitely is a tool. It is not a representation of reality. Anybody that confuses a model and what it models is not very smart. In scientists, that is typically in the form of selective blindness.
better headline: physicists are unsure what QM say (Score:3)
with only 24% reporting high confidence that their interpretation is correct i wouldn't describe them as "disagreeing wildly".
Multi-universe for me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, this universe is stuck with Microsoft. Maybe your fork-clone is enjoying the Linux Universe, but you can't cross the boundary to share that joy.
Learn from politicians (Score:2)
The smarter ones gave Schrodinger answers that can't be proven false because nobody can test Reality Path B in this universe.
Well, test the interpretations. (Score:2)
I would contend that it should be possible to find an implication of each interpretation that only exists in that interpretation. If, for example, Many Worlds is true, then it necessitates that any sort of information cannot be destroyed and vice versa, when considering the system as a whole. If Many Worlds is false, then superposition information is lost when superposition collapses, you cannot recover from the collapsed wave a complete set of all superposition states that existed. I'm sure that someone wi
Re: (Score:2)
Do we infer causality from phenomena that, at their core, are stochastic ? What is the nature of this "time" thing that we refer to ? Are these macro notions just a helpful mirage ? In "Word and Object", from W.V.O. Quine, it was a startling revelation to me that scientific method does not arrive at truth like a mathematical limit, but is rather a way at truth. Which fits with the saying that "all models are wrong, but some are more useful than others."
Re: (Score:2)
You contend incorrectly.
Interpretations are just stories. They don't make testable predictions. The math they're based on does, but for the most part they're based on the same math, so they make the same predictions. Where that's not strictly true, for example, path integrals and Feinman diagrams are often associated with many worlds, the math is equivalent, in the formally proven mathematical sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Not strictly correct. You would be correct for all consequences over any statistically significant timeframe, but (a) I've purposefully included things that aren't actually outcomes, and (b) over extremely short timeframes (femtoseconds and attoseconds), differences would emerge very briefly, because different mechanisms take different routes.
Remember, the maths only concerns itself with outcomes, not the path taken, so identical maths will be inevitable for non-identical paths.
Re: Well, test the interpretations. (Score:2)
So does the Banach-Tarski paradox mean I can make two black holes out of one?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because the paradox relies on infinitesimals, which have no cogmate in the material world.
Re: Well, test the interpretations. (Score:2)
Did you just admit Bishop Berkeley was right about infinitesmals?
Re: (Score:2)
Many Worlds is impossible if you can show that superposition ISN'T the sort of information that IS conserved, because Many Worlds requires, by its very nature, that it is.
It would have to be nearly infinite worlds rather than many. Every single superposition collapse would fork the universe. The information continues to exist, but not "here."
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. That's precisely how MWI is thought to work.
The premise of the argument is that, to conserve superposition information, you would necessarily need to prove that it would be grouped with information QM requires to be conserved, when viewed in a space that permitted it to be conserved. If it isn't, then there's no mechanism to preserve it, so no MWI.
It depends... (Score:1)
On how you look at it.
Or if you look at it.
"Century long track record" (Score:1)
When quantum physics first started, there was no knowledge of quarks and the strong force. Nor the weak force. The sun's source of energy wasn't even understood when quantum physics was first being developed.
The "crown jewel" of quantum electrodynamics, the prediction and measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment, didn't happen for another few decades, and it took several more decades for both the prediction and measurements to narrow down in precision to its current value.
This isn't to say that q
Feature, not a bug. (Score:2)
So a complex, difficult question with defensible positions on all sides sees its experts split significantly?
That's great. It means that dogma is challenged mercilessly. Good. And I trust that those positions will shift as evidence rises.
Math is the map, but reality is the territory (Score:2)
I'm thinking this survey is proof that Rene Descartes's problem of the criterion is alive and well. The results strongly suggest we do not (yet) have a definition of reality that is consistent. Yes, mathematics describes reality, in the same way that a map describes the territory. But as Lord Korzybski pointed out, the map is not the territory. The Nature survey underscores this with uncanny clarity: physicists have powerful tools for prediction, but no agreed-upon framework for what quantum theory means
Re: (Score:2)
Here is how physicists would describe it. When we say that a mathematical object is "real" (or more properly, "fundamental"), we mean that it's isomorphic to some aspect of reality. Their behavior is identical. By observing one, you can exactly predict the behavior of the other. Does that mean the mathematical object "is" the real object, or just that it's a perfect description? That's a philosophical question that's probably impossible to answer. Most physicists aren't concerned with it. An isomorph
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But most people get confused and think the territory follows the map. Even scientists fall for that one. It is easier for CS types (like me), because we know reality and data about reality are to very different things. Quantum Theory is just data, not reality. Reality cannot be wrong or incomplete. Data can be and often is.
I don't quite follow why "it's real waves" is not (Score:1)
I don't quite follow why "it's real waves" is not "the explanation".
Ok, one then perhaps needs to explain when and how it stops being a wave, but so what.
Reporters (Score:2)
"Reporters disagree wildly about what physicists say about quantum theory and reality."
Because reporters are generally uneducated idiots.
Obviously (Score:2)
Because nobody has a clue what reality is and the human mind does still not fit into the current theories anywhere.
The only reason some people are surprised by that is that many people think "everything is known". Not even close and for fundamental stuff, not at all.
Ah ha moment (Score:2)
I have long read about people stumped as they pursue a GUT, but my feeling is that we have long just asked the wrong questions.
Something like going back in time and, after proving we are a legitimate time traveller. Giving Newton one question. He would ask the same question we are still asking: "What truly causes gravity?"
That suggests to me that something is
\o/ (Score:1)
It's ok - it's quantum - they can all be right! :-)