Quantum physics and realism
July 3, 2008 9:06 am scienceFromPhysicsworld.com
Apr 20, 2007
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
“Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra “hidden variables”. Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism — giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).”
What is it about mind that appears to be central to the constitution of reality? This is the question raised by modern findings of physicists in repeatable experiments (provided you have atom smashers). Measurement, which is an act of consciousness, collapses superposed states (simultaneously dead and alive) into definite states. Open the box and Schroedinger’s cat is either dead or alive. Before you made the observation, it was both. Observation collapses the possibilities. What was a philosphical debate between Einstein (realist) and Niels Bohr (there is only measurement) in the 1920s and 1930s has now been put to the test in increasingly clever experiments which prove that realism is not a sustainable position.
Physicists have come to the conclusion that the assumption of realism, that there is an objective reality independent of measurement, is not sustainable. Einstein was wrong, and Niels Bohr was right. There is only measurement. Physicists have been testing this proposition in many subtle ways for decades. One by one the assumptions of locality (that apparently separate things cannot actually be united in simultaneous faster-than-light ways) and realism (that there is an objective reality behind the measurements) have had to be abandoned.
The second implication of this weirdness is for the biologists, and the materialists, such as Dawkins, constantly railing against the possibility of God. I keep wondering whether these fellows have actually read a book about the philosophical implications of quantum physics. I am not saying that modern findings in quantum physics prove the existence of God. Not at all. I am saying that modern findings in physics disprove the existence of matter as independent of mind. One can only wish that, before we are all hauled into the materialist Star Chambers to confess our thought-crimes against Dawkins Thought, we shall at least be granted the right to point out to them that they have an exceedingly compromized view of material reality. Indeed, matter is just not what it used to be.
The vast deserts of our ignorance!
Are we in the Matrix?
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Dalwhinnie
Lore_Weaver :
Date: July 3, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Just because we don’t know is no reason to invoke God.
Quantum weirdness is real. There are a couple of, as yet unproven, theories that try to explain some of it. One of those is string theory.
To articulate that collapsing a wave form happens faster than the speed of light is odd, as you can’t really directly measure it without collapsing it. You just end up measuring how fast you measure it. The speed limit of the universe isn’t broken as a result.
Quantum dynamics are one of the most precise sciences we have. It’s laws are definite to an amazing degree. If you could use it to measure the distance between Victoria and Halifax, you’d be correct within the width of a human hair.
Quantum mechanics is certainly uncertain. Einstein was only wrong about wanting to unify it with his gravitational theory, without understanding the cause of gravity himself (what creates gravity?).
We have further to go, invoking God only stops our ability to understand reality.
I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t believe in God here. I’m simply saying that belief in God shouldn’t enter into the Scientific domain.
You can head over to my blog and find my old Quantum Mechanics and the Human soul post. I talk a bit about Schroedinger’s Cat, and have some interesting debate with fellow BT’ers.
Swift :
Date: July 3, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Nonlocality does not disprove realism. It just proves Einstein’s principle of locality is wrong. Many physicists have been denying that anything can travel faster than light for years, despite evidence to the contrary. A signal in a laser beam travels faster than the light. As is often the case, a revolutionary new way of thinking only becomes ascendant when the proponents of the old way die off.
jmrSudbury :
Date: July 3, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Everyone’s reality is different. I can trust that someone saw it snow today even though I did not observe it myself. The report is a part of my reality, but the event is not. It may have snowed today, but it is not a part of my reality until I observe it or someone who observed it tells me about it. Being July and knowing that the temperature is 20C, I know that the likelyhood of snow is next to zero. Even if I were told that it was snowing, my calculations alter my reality such that I think there is little chance of the other person’s reality being correct. I would have to guess that the poplar trees are spewing seeds again.
About the cat, the cat was not both. There is a possibility that it could be either. Possibility is not certainty.
That it has not been observed does not change the reality for the cat. The cat’s reality does not become my own until I open the box. A piece of paper in a box is not all colours at the same time until I open the box. You thinking of a number is not all numbers until you tell me what it was. It has the equal probability of being any number, but it is only one number.
“Physicists have come to the conclusion that the assumption of realism, that there is an objective reality independent of measurement, is not sustainable. ”
So … if you look inside the box, then you know the paper is red, but for me it still could be blue, or yellow, or orange?!? So … stars that exist beyond the known universe do not exists until they are found?
Locality is a different problem because when it comes to observing atoms, the act of observing changes the location.
John M Reynolds
Dalwhinnie :
Date: July 3, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Thank you all for intelligent and thoughtful comments.
I am not invoking God, in the sense in which Lore Weaver speaks.
I am invoking political and religious tolerance for a deistic position. Those who are certain about God’s delusional nature are also certain about certain qualities of the material world that, in their view, preclude rational adherence to theism. I find quantum physics ought to give no comfort to such a position.
Kurt :
Date: July 3, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
@John Reynolds:
You don’t know what you’re talking about.. Your comments are ignorant, and u are clueless about quantum physics.. Quantum physics is extremely non-intuitive even for physicists.. Your “armchair observations” are insufficient, wrong and misleading.. Please spend a few months reading about the actual facts b4 u mislead any more people.. Your argument assumes that there exists “local realism”, which is not true according to quantum theory.. You can educate yourself about the rest.. If u have an open mind that is..
@author:
Your argument is specious..
I do not agree with your point that measurement can be correlated “solely” with consciousness.. An object can “measure” another object in a sense, and affect it’s wave function.. no conscious observer is needed.. its the “observation”, not the “observer” that is important.. Now, if u go into a loop and say that objects cannot really “observe”, then u have missed my point entirely..
jmrSudbury :
Date: July 4, 2008 @ 6:16 am
Kurt.
Quantum mechanics, especially the theory of entanglement, is being used to describe macro matter. On the quantum level, matter may indeed be related though spatially separated; however, the examples I gave are macro. Even the cat example is a poor example. My examples of the paper or stars beyond the known universe are similar to that cat example. Your suggesting that quantum mechanics can apply to classical mechanics is itself misleading.
If you still think my “armchair observations” are insufficient, wrong and misleading, then please tell me why.
John M Reynolds
Lore_Weaver :
Date: July 4, 2008 @ 8:07 am
John is Right. Schroedinger’s Cat is a thought experiment, meant to explain the nature of Quantum Mechanics.
However, an unobserved electron must be described as existing in all possible states, as the double slit experiment shows. The electron creates an interference pattern by bumping into itself.
However, should this be observed, the electron no longer interferes with itself. This is a proven fact.
Kurt :
Date: July 4, 2008 @ 9:28 am
@John:
Actually, your paper and star examples are not similar to the cat experiment, although they certainly appear to be..
‘Micro’ things can have ‘macro’ effects if u design the experiment suitably.. The cat experiment is suitably designed, the paper and star experiments are not..
Indeed, your observations about the paper and star experiments are correct, but they are “misleading” because these experiments are not analogous to the cat experiment..
The paper and star experiments refer to uncertainty in the “knowledge” of reality, while the cat experiment refers to uncertainty in the reality itself.. This is a major distinction, although it may appear to be subtle..
Dalwhinnie :
Date: July 6, 2008 @ 5:27 am
To our friend Kurt:
1. Politeness please. It is by no means evident from your arguments that you have such a commanding superiority of intelligence or logic that might, possibly, justify taking such a high tone with your correspendents. But even if you had it, mere politeness would caution you to a more civil and obliging tone.
2. How there can be an observation without an observer escapes me, and most other people. If you could elaborate your argument, it might be possible to persuade me. In which case refer to point (1) above when you make it, otherwise the penalty is oblivion for obnoxious behaviour, of which I am the sole arbitrator on this site.