Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

a reply to: luthier

Really?

You don't have an answer? No giant produced one? I wonder why. Something classical which hasn't been figured out. Quite interesting, don't you think?

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

Really?

You don't have an answer? No giant produced one? I wonder why. Something classical which hasn't been figured out. Quite interesting, don't you think?

Are we now in the twilight zone? What are you talking about. Can you produce what you asked? Is in a spirit language?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

What if you are blind and cannot therefore see. Does that not suggest that nothing exists including the self yet the self exists whether it can see or not, does it not.

The article says nothing about the measurement needing to be performed by a human observer. In fact the delayed choice quantum eraser also proves that non-conscious machines can perform measurements. What this article is saying is that particles can exist in a probabilistic wave-like state but they change when they are measured (by man or machine), they go back to acting like classical billiard balls. The article says "reality does not exist if you are not looking at it" but that is absolutely false, it certainly does exist, it just doesn't exist the same way it exists when it's being measured/observed. Furthermore it only really applies to small quantum objects, large objects are essentially the same whether you are observing them or not.

bumping because pretend physicists need to be curtailed.

i also would like to point out that while observation may determine the particle form, the wave form still has a finite number of possibilities and therefore reality is not determined by our observation but simply actualized from this finite range of manifestations. think of it as a ball bouncing. you might not see the ball bounce, but that doesnt change how gravity and mass both affect its velocity and trajectory. seeing the ball bounce might in some weird sense "solidify" its existence but in no consequential manner like some people would imply. regardless of your presence, the ball will bounce according to physics and no amount of observation will change that. this isnt the matrix, the ball isnt in your mind, and you are not going to turn it into a banana or reproduce another in the palm of your hand or control it with your thoughts like magic. ignorance and awareness are your only two options regarding the ball, and the same goes for the rest of reality.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i also would like to point out that while observation may determine the particle form, the wave form still has a finite number of possibilities and therefore reality is not determined by our observation but simply actualized from this finite range of manifestations. think of it as a ball bouncing. you might not see the ball bounce, but that doesnt change how gravity and mass both affect its velocity and trajectory. seeing the ball bounce might in some weird sense "solidify" its existence but in no consequential manner like some people would imply. regardless of your presence, the ball will bounce according to physics and no amount of observation will change that. this isnt the matrix, the ball isnt in your mind, and you are not going to turn it into a banana or reproduce another in the palm of your hand or control it with your thoughts like magic. ignorance and awareness are your only two options regarding the ball, and the same goes for the rest of reality.

Again with the metaphors. Still waiting for a scientific explanation or paper?

I am not sure that our understanding of waveform is even accurate. It seems as though our idea of waveform is just a 2d representation of an event. If you look at the cymascope you can see we are starting to realize waveforms are really three dimensional bubbles that expand and contract.

Also Ps. You don't understand the science behind this theory at all.

I really don't believe in any simulation theory but this seems to me that the material world is like the graphics of a computer game and the physics is like the coding behind the game haha I believe that we cannot even comprehend why we are here. Simple calculations and technology these days would be called witchcraft a few hundred years ago. I would really like to make a post of my views but cant post yet

originally posted by: kingofthesouth
I really don't believe in any simulation theory but this seems to me that the material world is like the graphics of a computer game and the physics is like the coding behind the game haha I believe that we cannot even comprehend why we are here. Simple calculations and technology these days would be called witchcraft a few hundred years ago. I would really like to make a post of my views but cant post yet

It could be argued that people have come to this conclusion with meditation and reason alone at least in principle.

originally posted by: fixitwcw

does anyone else notice,

that by saying this is true, (Reality does not exist until measured.) you would also be saying that we can know all things, simply through measurement alone? hmmmmmm.

That thought makes me think of the metaphor of being on a hot date, or if you THINK it's a hot date...and then actually take that measurement, lol. be careful or you'll get your waveform collapsed.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

What if you are blind and cannot therefore see. Does that not suggest that nothing exists including the self yet the self exists whether it can see or not, does it not.

The article says nothing about the measurement needing to be performed by a human observer. In fact the delayed choice quantum eraser also proves that non-conscious machines can perform measurements. What this article is saying is that particles can exist in a probabilistic wave-like state but they change when they are measured (by man or machine), they go back to acting like classical billiard balls. The article says "reality does not exist if you are not looking at it" but that is absolutely false, it certainly does exist, it just doesn't exist the same way it exists when it's being measured/observed. Furthermore it only really applies to small quantum objects, large objects are essentially the same whether you are observing them or not.

bumping because pretend physicists need to be curtailed.

I would love to know what a pretend physicist actually is... If you mean someone who pretends to be a physicist.. it surely is as easy as pie to catch them out... since they will be unable to understand some simple equations or how one might use such.

I myself have often been accused of such, which is quite amusing since I was for many years a prof of physics at a well known English establishment.

I normally just laugh at the irony as typically the person accusing is digging a rather large hole for themselves.

That is not to say that there isn't room for philosophy, which to my knowledge anyone can engage in, regardless of their educational background.

a reply to: Korg TrinityI love thinking philosophically! Always have done! I'm not a physicist yet I do understand the basic laws of physics. Great ideas are born in philosophy and made in physics in my opinion. I think philosophy should be something that every individual should practice to some extent. It really opens your mind to new understandings which you may have never thought of before.

Oh course. How does this help us?

If you're measuring, then you are sensing something. So then you are a sensing measuring thing. You exist when you are the sensing measuring thing because if you did not exist then you would be what we call dead. I bet rocks don't measure or sense or even thinkatize. Rocks exist. And they're dead. They don't know it. Because they're dead. So to them they don't exist. If they weren't dead they'd use their rock powers to roll up next to each other and form intricate networks of rockbots.

originally posted by: kingofthesouth
a reply to: Korg TrinityI love thinking philosophically! Always have done! I'm not a physicist yet I do understand the basic laws of physics. Great ideas are born in philosophy and made in physics in my opinion. I think philosophy should be something that every individual should practice to some extent. It really opens your mind to new understandings which you may have never thought of before.

I think the issue arises when the Philosophical argument comes up against proven laws of physics... and the person sprouting their philosophy can't or won't accept the facts.

a reply to: Korg Trinity
So your saying us being in a simulation is a fact?

originally posted by: kingofthesouth
a reply to: Korg Trinity
So your saying us being in a simulation is a fact?

No nothing of the sort.

I was merely pointing out how most of the discussions surrounding the origin of the universe end up. some philosophical ideas can be discounted due to well established scientific facts...

And on the other hand...

Given that often the answer one gets from an experimentation opens up a myriad of other questions, it can strengthen a philosophical view too.

if you get me?

a reply to: Korg Trinity

You said:

I was merely pointing out how most of the discussions surrounding the origin of the universe end up. some philosophical ideas can be discounted due to well established scientific facts...

Let's hear some well established scientific facts.

You said conscious is an emergent property of the material brain. I say there isn't ONE SHRED of well established scientific facts to support this silly notion.

Let's see the well established Scientific facts.

It's funny how people try to throw weight behind their opinions and beliefs by trying to act like their being backed by "well established scientific facts" and this is just a lie.

THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT'S SCIENTIFIC SAYS THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED FOR LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE NEEDS CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS TO EXIST.

Everything else is belief masquerading as "scientific."

The constants of nature are fine tuned for life. They're fine tuned to produce stars, comets, moons, our universe and life. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANCE. The universe couldn't have formed any other way.

You look at the vacuum catastrophe. The Cosmological Constant is one part in 10/120 and theory of where it should be was off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!

In cosmology, the vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between measured values of the vacuum energy density and the theoretical zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. This discrepancy has been described as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's more:





You have the axis of evil in Cosmology.

Planck Satellite Confirms WMAP Findings: Universe is not Copernican

Without getting overly technical, the Copernican and cosmological principles require that any variation in the radiation from the CMB be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe, especially on large scales. Results from the WMAP satellite (early 2000s) indicated that when looking at large scales of the universe, the noise could be partitioned into “hot” and “cold” sections, and this partitioning is aligned with our ecliptic plane and equinoxes. This partitioning and alignment resulted in an axis through the universe, which scientists dubbed “the axis of evil”, because of the damage it does to their theories. This axis passes right through our tiny portion of the universe. Laurence Krauss commented in 2005:

“ But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

Most scientists brushed the observation off as a fluke of some type, and many theories were created to explain it away. Many awaited the Planck mission. The Planck satellite was looked upon as a referee for these unexpected (and unwelcome) results. The Planck satellite used different sensor technology, and an improved scanning pattern to map the CMB. In March 2013, Planck reported back, and in fact verified the presence of the signal in even higher definition than before!

medium.com...

Song, gives you evidence of the subjective universe using the math of quantum theory. Not Philosophy or Metaphysics, but well established Scientific theory. He showed two things:

1. When an observer observes their own reference frame the symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg break down and conscious is no longer computable or bound by physical constraints.

2. The reference framE of the local observer and the wave function is inseparable. VERY PROFOUND INDEED!

In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

www.prnewswire.com...

Here's a copy of Song's published paper:

arxiv.org...



You have growing evidence for Panspermia, Quantum Biology and the Wave Function as a non physical reality. All things that support what I'm saying.

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

arxiv.org...

In many cases, people try to say, LISTEN TO ME because I'm scientific. It just means they have no evidence to support what they're saying and they think people are idiots who will just accept opinion and hyperbole masquerading as Science.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You said:

I was merely pointing out how most of the discussions surrounding the origin of the universe end up. some philosophical ideas can be discounted due to well established scientific facts...

Let's hear some well established scientific facts.

You said conscious is an emergent property of the material brain. I say there isn't ONE SHRED of well established scientific facts to support this silly notion.

Let's see the well established Scientific facts.

It's funny how people try to throw weight behind their opinions and beliefs by trying to act like their being backed by "well established scientific facts" and this is just a lie.

THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT'S SCIENTIFIC SAYS THE UNIVERSE IS FINE TUNED FOR LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE NEEDS CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS TO EXIST.

Everything else is belief masquerading as "scientific."

The constants of nature are fine tuned for life. They're fine tuned to produce stars, comets, moons, our universe and life. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANCE. The universe couldn't have formed any other way.

You look at the vacuum catastrophe. The Cosmological Constant is one part in 10/120 and theory of where it should be was off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!

In cosmology, the vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between measured values of the vacuum energy density and the theoretical zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. This discrepancy has been described as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics."[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's more:

You have the axis of evil in Cosmology.

Planck Satellite Confirms WMAP Findings: Universe is not Copernican

Without getting overly technical, the Copernican and cosmological principles require that any variation in the radiation from the CMB be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe, especially on large scales. Results from the WMAP satellite (early 2000s) indicated that when looking at large scales of the universe, the noise could be partitioned into “hot” and “cold” sections, and this partitioning is aligned with our ecliptic plane and equinoxes. This partitioning and alignment resulted in an axis through the universe, which scientists dubbed “the axis of evil”, because of the damage it does to their theories. This axis passes right through our tiny portion of the universe. Laurence Krauss commented in 2005:

“ But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

Most scientists brushed the observation off as a fluke of some type, and many theories were created to explain it away. Many awaited the Planck mission. The Planck satellite was looked upon as a referee for these unexpected (and unwelcome) results. The Planck satellite used different sensor technology, and an improved scanning pattern to map the CMB. In March 2013, Planck reported back, and in fact verified the presence of the signal in even higher definition than before!

medium.com...

Song, gives you evidence of the subjective universe using the math of quantum theory. Not Philosophy or Metaphysics, but well established Scientific theory. He showed two things:

1. When an observer observes their own reference frame the symmetry between Schrodinger and Heisenberg break down and conscious is no longer computable or bound by physical constraints.

2. The reference framE of the local observer and the wave function is inseparable. VERY PROFOUND INDEED!

In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

www.prnewswire.com...

Here's a copy of Song's published paper:

arxiv.org...

You have growing evidence for Panspermia, Quantum Biology and the Wave Function as a non physical reality. All things that support what I'm saying.

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

arxiv.org...

In many cases, people try to say, LISTEN TO ME because I'm scientific. It just means they have no evidence to support what they're saying and they think people are idiots who will just accept opinion and hyperbole masquerading as Science.

I am not going to attack korg but i do agree with a lot of what you said. The ftu has been the hardest cosmological explanation of the existence of god to disprove. It just doesn't mean an abrahamic god so it backfires on some Christians.

There are other explanations and possibilities though they require more "faith" ironically since they are more theoretical where as the FTU is empirical.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i also would like to point out that while observation may determine the particle form, the wave form still has a finite number of possibilities and therefore reality is not determined by our observation but simply actualized from this finite range of manifestations.

I think the wavefunction is the actual reality, as the equations of motion of quantum mechanics indicate, and particles are the observable effect which can come and go. And yes the wavefunction is weird as heck, in a functional space we can't possibly intuitively visualize, and we should get used to it.

This saying 'reality doesn't exist until....' is already presuming a philosophical bias towards treating the particles as the 'real thing' and the wavefunction as the sort of sometime vaporous spectre.

After all, you can have a wavefunction which is in an indeterminate state of particle *number* (perfectly allowed by QM). You just aren't in a pure eigenstate of particle number operator, no big whoop.

So when you interact/observe which forces a definite observed particle number it will collapse to 2 particles or maybe 3 or sometimes 4.

That's fine, nobody blinks an eye, but when that outcome set includes zero everybody loses their mind.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Well you clearly didn't read what I said. I just explained to you why there is no possible classical "engine" that can explain the way elementary particles behave, Bells Theorem proves that fact. If you want to hold onto your deterministic view of reality you are better off looking at many world theories. You need to move out of the 1920's, we aren't living in a clockwork universe.

I believe one can retain determinism, just not local determinism of a classical field theory (that is fundamental dynamical equations based on local derivatives of fields with Lorentz covariance, and no non-local integrals).

In what ways is the Bohr-Heisenberg evolution operator (extended to quantum fields) ever been wrong? I know of no case.

In what ways is the Bohr-Hesinberg evolution operator non-deterministic? It isn't.

The mutual nonlinear interaction of fields & their immense number of particles can create the impenetrable illusion of fundamental non-determinism using chaos.

And then over, and over, the experiments show "something" is transmitted and interacting across non-classically-causal limits.

It's time to remove ones head out from the woo port and believe the experimental facts which are ever re-affirmed:

1) isolated quantum mechanical systems do not show spontaneous stochasticity [this is the point of quantum computation: manufacturing things which maintain this as long as possible]

2) when interacting with macroscopic observing instruments, they do.

3) coupled quantum mechanical systems show correlations across space-like intervals and interactions propagate across such intervals, but classical information encoded macroscopically cannot.

If this weren't about something with such mysticism behind it, the natural conclusions about the underlying fundamental reality would be:

(a) Basic equations of motion are determnistic but appear stochastic in thermodynamically large systems for the usual reason.
(b) But they cannot be a classical field theory like E&M or acoustics.

And the answer's been there since 1926.

I think this thread and findings are so cool. I remember laying in bed late at night as a teenager thinking if nobody is looking at the garage, spare bedroom, ect is it really actually there? Actually have been wondering that my whole life.

Now these new findings make me take a second look at the simulation theory. Maybe if nobody's looking its actually not there for a reason, to save space. For example if your not using a program on your computer its usually not running, obviously if everything is running at once the computer would be to slow to use.

I dont know just a thought that popped in my head thought I would share. If anybody dosent fully understand what I'm saying let me know and I will explain in more detail.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
What if you are blind and cannot therefore see. Does that not suggest that nothing exists including the self yet the self exists whether it can see or not, does it not. Surely in order to observe anything in the first place then it must exist whether measured or not otherwise its surely not possible to observe anything because the observer doesn't exist. And if the observer doesn't exist then nothing can be observed or measured. Now i've confused myself. Don't buy the Hologram theory. Sorry

I would presume that a blind person's reality is different than a person with sight, however, they sense the same reality we do by the use of other senses to a close approximation. If I were to sneak up to a blind person and just stand there in front of them, I would not exist in their reality, that is, until they touched, smelled, or heard that I was there. You do not merely need sight to "measure" anything. A blind person could do these same studies with modified equipment. Cameras and computers do the observing and measuring and the data that is collected can be transmited to the blind scientist through sound or brail printouts, as the equipment itself is the actual oberver.

A person in a coma (no senses in use) would not have any idea what reality is as they are absolutley unable to discern any incoming information about their surroundings, thus, they are totally cut off from reality, essentially stopping their percieved reality until they come out of the coma; which i would presume would be similar to going through a time-slip to them, not knowing how many days have passed, nurses have groped them, visitors tea-bagged them, etc.