Quantum experiment verifies Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'

Yet another blow to scientific realism. There was another recently published paper that showed how macrorealism was violated. Entanglement has been done with particle pairs but this experiment was done with a single photon.

An experiment devised in Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein's original conception of "spooky action at a distance" using a single particle.

In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, CQD Director Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators at the University of Tokyo report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a particle's wave function.

According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances, but is never detected in two or more places.

This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory by what Einstein disparaged in 1927 as "spooky action at a distance", or the instantaneous non-local collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.

These things have profound implications about the nature of reality and basically show materialism is dead. I'll explain more in a minute but the article went onto say.

"Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle," says Professor Wiseman.

"Einstein's view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.

"However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices."

"Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong."

phys.org...

Schrodinger also hated it because of what QM implied.

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
(Erwin Schrodinger talking about Quantum Physics)

QM basically destroys any materialist notion of reality. What it supports is what mystics, spiritualist, religions, Philosophers and some Scientist have been saying for years. It's Plato's Allegory of the Cave or the Akashic Records. It's Einstein even saying that separation from the whole is an illusion.

So what is this telling us?

What these things mean is that the reality we experience is just a local perception of "NOW" that's just an illusion. The true nature of reality we can't seem to measure so we measure an aspect of our local environment. Many people mistake this local perception of "NOW" as being some sort of objective reality when it's not.

The wave function is real and I say nonphysical.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Here's another article:

Traveling without moving: Quantum communication scheme transfers quantum states without transmitting physical particles

phys.org...

This herein lies the crux of the matter. Some who support Copenhagen will say the wave function is a mathematical construct but this is because there isn't anything physical that can describe it. So it doesn't really exist but they just need to ask is the wave function a nonphysical entity and everything falls into place.

The nonphysical wave function is an entity of quantum states or information about every measured state that can exist. It's the whole that we can't measure in it's totality. So when we do measure it, we can only experience one quantum state because we can't measure the totality of the wave function. So we see what we call "matter" which illuminates these states within our environment.

So like I said, the mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been right all along. It's amazing that people like Plato and Parmenides could grasp these things without the scientific knowledge we have today.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So like I said, the mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been right all along. It's amazing that people like Plato and Parmenides could grasp these things without the scientific knowledge we have today.

But not for macroscale objects, so if this is your "Therefore, magic" moment, I hate to break it to you...this sort of thing only applies to very very small scales.

It's also sort of cognitively dissonant to be saying that scientific reality is no more, when what you're basing it on is at the bleeding edge of science. Sort of a liar's paradox, wouldn't you say?

a reply to: neoholographic

Yet another blow to scientific realism.

How? The experiment matches scientific prediction so it confirms science.

There's a lot of inconsistency in what that term even means:
philsci-archive.pitt.edu...

It is perhaps only a slight exaggeration to say that scientific realism is characterized differently by every author who discusses it

The experiment confirms quantum mechanics. It doesn't confirm quantum woo.

Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics.

...The logical process runs something like this:

I want magic to exist.
I don't understand quantum.
Therefore, quantum could mean magic exists.

Concepts such as "non-locality" or "quantum probability waves" or "uncertainty principle" have become social memes of a kind where people inherently recognize that something "strange" is going on. Practitioners of fraudulent and silly ideas can tap into this feeling of mystery to push their sham concepts...

What we observe is consistent with our model of quantum mechanics. I can't say there's no mystery in QM, as we don't have all the answers, but that's no reason to invoke claims of quantum woo.

profound!!!

S&F thank you.

the older I get, the less I understand....

I hope we can settle as a species with the fact we do not really understand our reality...

Yet I do not suggest we stop trying...

We just need to get a grip.....

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wow!!

It only took a few seconds for the quantum woo nonsense to rear it's head.

Of course it confirms quantum mechanics which shows material reality doesn't have an objective existence. There's nothing magic here.

Where did I say anything about magic? When did I say I want magic to exist.

This is the James Randi school of nonsense that says quantum woo and think it means something. What you're saying, is only your nonsensical, illogical view of a material reality makes sense. But QM tells us, material reality that we perceive as objective reality is just an illusion. It doesn't exist.

You can scream quantum woo and be a James Randi mindless robot all you want to but that doesn't change anything.

originally posted by: Bicent76
profound!!!

S&F thank you.

the older I get, the less I understand....

I hope we can settle as a species with the fact we do not really understand our reality...

Yet I do not suggest we stop trying...

We just need to get a grip.....

Thanks, I think it's profound also and elegant. Ancient, Mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been telling us for years that there's a WHOLE that contains information about all things and the PART that we experience is just an illusion.

a reply to: neoholographic

I can try not to delve, into it, but I do not fully understand, it but i do know that their is a part of science, that science is ignorant to, it is that fractal portion of life that most scientist refuse to see, based off of academics I suppose...

originally posted by: neoholographic
Where did I say anything about magic? When did I say I want magic to exist.

Right here:

So like I said, the mystics, Philosophers and Spiritualist have been right all along.

Mystic

of or relating to mysticism or mystics...
having magical properties

a reply to: Arbitrageur

LOL, nope.

Here's from the link you quoted from.

1
: mystical 1a
2
: of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites : occult

3
: of or relating to mysticism or mystics
4
a : mysterious
b : obscure, enigmatic
c : inducing a feeling of awe or wonder
d : having magical properties

Like many words, it can mean different things. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with quantum woo or wanting magic to exist. I can say a card trick has magical properties that doesn't mean I want magic to exist as you said.

I want magic to exist.

This is what you said. Get your head out of the James Randi book of nonsense.

a reply to: neoholographic

meh, hatred is a simple attraction, in any case this is a interesting story...

We still sit in 2015, with more unanswered questions than answers,

It is a irony, to me to see the ignorance of man now

we still have no idea how gravity, works or why it is there,
we still do not understand our reality,
we still do not understand our universe,
and we still have not explored all of our planet...

Yet we are still attacking each other on who and what is the right answer to our ponderings of wonder..

Keep tapping that glass OP

If I have to I will guard the damn door while we continue to use the room to swim in the sphere of the unknown, it is time for us to wake up from this nightmare, sooner then later....

a reply to: Bicent76

Good points and anytime you point out the flaw of materialism, the substance of what you're saying is never debated, they immediately fall into the ignorance of James Randi with the quantum woo nonsense.

a reply to: neoholographic

yea I find it interesting you immediately get attacked on ats, for posting the results of a experiment on ats...

Also as I posted mankind technically has no idea why he exists, yet he can attack an idea that if anything expands on the idea towards an answer...

Amazing, and disturbing, and ironically the attack post is still on the site...

a reply to: neoholographic

Glad that this new experiment proves that James Randi doesn't exist, a much better non-local world without him.

I still can't wrap my head around what this means. How does showing that a single particle contains the non-local action aspect change human's perception and understanding of the universe (in laymen's terms)?

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: neoholographic

yea I find it interesting you immediately get attacked on ats, for posting the results of a experiment on ats...

Posting the experiment is fine and there's no dispute about that. It's the claim that it shows mystics were right all along that's in dispute as it does no such thing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am focused more on the experiment, not the biased claim....

a reply to: Bicent76

Good points and here's more. Not because of woo or wanting magic to exist but an actual experiment that took place.

If macrorealism were true, repeated measurements, at different times, of a single macroscopic system would only be statistically correlated up to a certain degree, giving what they called the Leggett–Garg (LG) inequality.

"According to [macrorealism], the [object] always moves on a specific trajectory, independent of our observation," says Andrea Alberti at the University of Bonn, Germany.

By carrying out this "null result" measurement technique in the middle step, the researchers could determine the atom's location without directly interacting with it. By repeating this experiment many times, and seeing when the fluorescence is detected, the researchers can tell which wave the atom was in (and therefore its position) and also that the atom was not disturbed in any way. If macrorealism was true, the null measurement would not affect the outcome of the final fluorescence measurement, and the total amount of correlation of the atom's position in time could be explained classically – but this is not the case. Indeed, the blurring that happens in the quantum walk leads to a stronger total correlation than is possible under macrorealism. This is mathematically demonstrated via the LG inequality violation, clearly showing that macrorealism cannot apply to the caesium atom.

The results of Alberti's experiment seem to nail down for sure that a caesium atom obeys the laws of quantum mechanics, and that macrorealism does not apply. In the future, similar experiments with even larger masses and with longer superposition times will help to either narrow down the inherent boundary that lies between the quantum and classical world, or banish it once and for all and lay the foundations for a more advanced quantum theory.

physicsworld.com...

I think it's fascinating that macroscopic objects can be put into superposition or be shown to violate macrorealism. This points to the fact a material objective reality may not exist. They will have to do more test at different distances and with bigger objects but the fact that this occurs on a macroscopic level at all is pretty amazing.

You just have science agreeing with mystics, spiritualist, philosophers and what some scientist have been saying throughout the years.

There's something that represents the WHOLE and what we see is just a PART and you can call that whole the wave function, multiverse, extra dimensions, holographic universe or something else but most scientist are looking for and they agree that our perception of "NOW" isn't an objective reality as Einstein noted when he talked about the evolution of our 3 dimensional existence within the whole of 4 dimensional space-time.

a reply to: neoholographic

we are taking the right steps, in evolution, hopefully our childrens children, can be more open minded and discover more then we ever will our generation are still at war with old beliefs and new ones..


I have accepted I am ahead of my time, in perception, and my generation will be remembered for nothing really...

Gotta love it...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Interesting article in wired that might interest. Apparently Einstein was active in trying to re-establish pilot wave theory which explains quantum mechanics without the need for any hidden variables.

Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the “preposterous” neglect of the theory on “decades of indoctrination.” At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.

link

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wow!!

It only took a few seconds for the quantum woo nonsense to rear it's head.

Right from the OP, I'd say.

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: neoholographic

yea I find it interesting you immediately get attacked on ats, for posting the results of a experiment on ats...

That would be because the OP's premise is flawed, and it's in S&T.

Had it been in skunk works or philosophy, not so much.