Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MIT Technology Review)   You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own reality. Physicists: um, about that   (technologyreview.com) divider line
    More: Strange, Quantum mechanics, physicist Eugene Wigner, thought experiment, Reality, Wigner's friend, different realities, nature of measurement, experiment shows  
•       •       •

1301 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Mar 2019 at 2:56 PM (10 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2019-03-12 03:05:01 PM  
Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.
 
2019-03-12 03:10:49 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


Unfortunately I am married and this explains a lot.
 
2019-03-12 03:13:52 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


Then explain this, which SpocksEars' friend just sent me from his browser:

duckpoopy: Thankfully we don't live in the microscale where these effects exist.

 
2019-03-12 03:15:26 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


Statistics FTW.
 
2019-03-12 03:22:32 PM  
So after one guy breaks the superposition some other guy does a test and the test that says the superposition is not broken, right?

Using occams razor, it seems more plausable the test is broken not reality.
 
2019-03-12 03:28:36 PM  

dready zim: So after one guy breaks the superposition some other guy does a test and the test that says the superposition is not broken, right?

Using occams razor, it seems more plausable the test is broken not reality.


I'd wait for a Phys.org article on this because it really feels like somebody somewhere is missing something. Considering Wigner apparently used this to justify the role of "consciousness" in QM and it preceded Bell Inequalities which proved a lot of weird entanglement stuff, I feel like there are inherent misconceptions built on, though I haven't looked at it closely enough to say for sure. Just feels off.
 
2019-03-12 03:31:53 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


Yes **1/(6.62607004 × 10-34)
 
2019-03-12 03:33:23 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2019-03-12 03:44:17 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-12 03:47:49 PM  
So Wigner says the particle is in either A or B state, and Wigner's Friend says that he measured it and it was one of those. How is there a discrepancy?
 
2019-03-12 03:54:25 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


If everything at the macroscale is made from quantum scale particles then there isn't really a difference.
 
2019-03-12 04:07:30 PM  

dready zim: So after one guy breaks the superposition some other guy does a test and the test that says the superposition is not broken, right?

Using occams razor, it seems more plausable the test is broken not reality.


Or does the superposition state reoccur once the first test is done?
 
2019-03-12 04:10:16 PM  
I'm sure this won't be misconstrued and misapplied by your average run-of-the-mill American. Nope, none of them will every try to use something like this to argue that their anti-intellectual ideas are just as valid as an expert's opinion. I'm sure no grief will come of this.
 
2019-03-12 04:11:45 PM  
I've said this for years.  I'll say it again:

There is flexibility to reality.  We see this most readily when we force extreme situations, such as a test designed to examine quantum behavior. These are extreme situations by default, potentially causing the 'weird' behavior we observe.

I propose that Quantum and Relativity are not at war.
Relativity is the rule, and Quantum is the error band.


If I ever bother to do another degree, it's going to be on that, right there.
 
2019-03-12 04:18:00 PM  

gophurt: So Wigner says the particle is in either A or B state, and Wigner's Friend says that he measured it and it was one of those. How is there a discrepancy?


Wigner is saying that the particle hasn't been measured, and his friend is saying it has.
 
2019-03-12 04:21:46 PM  
I'm going to use this opportunity to present my layperson's interpretation of this: this just shows that the "collapse of the wave function" does not reflect a real-world phenomena, but rather a change in our understanding of the world. The wave-function is our knowledge of the world, and it "collapses" when we gain more information. Different people see different wave-functions due to their knowledge being different.

I will note that I have seen physicists discuss this, and the agreement is that it's wrong, but I'm going to go on believing it anyway, because physicists also just told me that reality is subjective.
 
2019-03-12 04:25:47 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


That won't stop someone from saying this is proof of homeopathy or ESP or whatever.
 
2019-03-12 04:38:54 PM  

RoomFullOfMonkeys: I'm going to use this opportunity to present my layperson's interpretation of this: this just shows that the "collapse of the wave function" does not reflect a real-world phenomena, but rather a change in our understanding of the world. The wave-function is our knowledge of the world, and it "collapses" when we gain more information. Different people see different wave-functions due to their knowledge being different.

I will note that I have seen physicists discuss this, and the agreement is that it's wrong, but I'm going to go on believing it anyway, because physicists also just told me that reality is subjective.


Imagine that everything observable is event-driven.  And every event happens inside of a probability shell.  No matter how precise a measurement, when or where an event actually took place will be within a probability shell (like an electron shell, basically).  The messy part is when relativity comes along, the shells can warp into nearly any shape depending on your perspective.
 
2019-03-12 04:40:41 PM  
Somewhere, James P. Hogan is having himself a good chuckle...
 
2019-03-12 04:42:53 PM  

RoomFullOfMonkeys: I'm going to use this opportunity to present my layperson's interpretation of this: this just shows that the "collapse of the wave function" does not reflect a real-world phenomena, but rather a change in our understanding of the world. The wave-function is our knowledge of the world, and it "collapses" when we gain more information. Different people see different wave-functions due to their knowledge being different.

I will note that I have seen physicists discuss this, and the agreement is that it's wrong, but I'm going to go on believing it anyway, because physicists also just told me that reality is subjective.


Or maybe it's just our observation of "reality" that's subjective and particles in a state of superposition is actually "reality"? Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It changes state when we observe it but the state it falls into is relative to the observer.
 
2019-03-12 04:45:12 PM  
In Stephen Baxter's sci fi novels, humans in the distant future form a religion based on the Wigner's Friend thought experiment. The "Friends of Wigner" believe that at the end of time, there will come a point where only a single conscious mind remains in the universe, and that "ultimate observer" would collapse the universal wavefunction, but in a conscious way: being able to choose which of all the possible timelines would lead to the end, and the most ideal one would become the "real" timeline.

Not bad for a science fiction-based religion. Beats the hell out of $cientology.
 
2019-03-12 06:00:31 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


You could make the effect macroscale by adding a cat.  (Damnit Schrödinger)

Take the same experiment describe in the article.  You hook a cat up to a monitor so you can measure its heart beat in both rooms. You set up the experiment so that the circuit that notifies the scientist the polarity of the light also instantly kills the cat. That way any time the superposition of the light collapses the cat is dead.

According to this article, if I understand it correctly, the scientist in one room could call up the scientist in the other room and tell him the measurement has been taken and the cat is dead.  But the guy in the other room could still be watching a monitor that has an alive heart beat since his reality still has the light in superposition.

Creepy.
 
2019-03-12 06:06:02 PM  

solve4x: duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.

You could make the effect macroscale by adding a cat.  (Damnit Schrödinger)

Take the same experiment describe in the article.  You hook a cat up to a monitor so you can measure its heart beat in both rooms. You set up the experiment so that the circuit that notifies the scientist the polarity of the light also instantly kills the cat. That way any time the superposition of the light collapses the cat is dead.

According to this article, if I understand it correctly, the scientist in one room could call up the scientist in the other room and tell him the measurement has been taken and the cat is dead.  But the guy in the other room could still be watching a monitor that has an alive heart beat since his reality still has the light in superposition.

Creepy.


If the scientist never shared the result of the measurement and the guy that "knows" the cat is alive walks over and pulls him out of the box in front of the guy that "knows" the cat is dead, what happens?
 
2019-03-12 06:21:51 PM  

solve4x: solve4x: duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.

You could make the effect macroscale by adding a cat.  (Damnit Schrödinger)

Take the same experiment describe in the article.  You hook a cat up to a monitor so you can measure its heart beat in both rooms. You set up the experiment so that the circuit that notifies the scientist the polarity of the light also instantly kills the cat. That way any time the superposition of the light collapses the cat is dead.

According to this article, if I understand it correctly, the scientist in one room could call up the scientist in the other room and tell him the measurement has been taken and the cat is dead.  But the guy in the other room could still be watching a monitor that has an alive heart beat since his reality still has the light in superposition.

Creepy.

If the scientist never shared the result of the measurement and the guy that "knows" the cat is alive walks over and pulls him out of the box in front of the guy that "knows" the cat is dead, what happens?


What constitutes an observer? Does the cat's observation influence the result? Maybe the cat has a say in it.
 
2019-03-12 07:00:40 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


Most quantum strangeness (including everything from spooky action at a distance to this specific example) disappears entirely when people stop thinking of time as 'what a clock reads' and rather consider it as a non-local hidden variable.   But why follow the evidence wherever it leads, when it clearly disagrees with some widely-accepted tenets?
 
2019-03-12 07:53:19 PM  

New Farkin User Name: it really feels like somebody somewhere is missing something.


This is my feeling also.
 
2019-03-12 08:13:39 PM  

spooky.action: solve4x: solve4x: duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.

You could make the effect macroscale by adding a cat.  (Damnit Schrödinger)

Take the same experiment describe in the article.  You hook a cat up to a monitor so you can measure its heart beat in both rooms. You set up the experiment so that the circuit that notifies the scientist the polarity of the light also instantly kills the cat. That way any time the superposition of the light collapses the cat is dead.

According to this article, if I understand it correctly, the scientist in one room could call up the scientist in the other room and tell him the measurement has been taken and the cat is dead.  But the guy in the other room could still be watching a monitor that has an alive heart beat since his reality still has the light in superposition.

Creepy.

If the scientist never shared the result of the measurement and the guy that "knows" the cat is alive walks over and pulls him out of the box in front of the guy that "knows" the cat is dead, what happens?

What constitutes an observer? Does the cat's observation influence the result? Maybe the cat has a say in it.


Now I'm imagining a Time Traveling cat returning from the future to get his revenge on the scientist
 
2019-03-12 08:42:27 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: spooky.action: solve4x: solve4x: duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.

You could make the effect macroscale by adding a cat.  (Damnit Schrödinger)

Take the same experiment describe in the article.  You hook a cat up to a monitor so you can measure its heart beat in both rooms. You set up the experiment so that the circuit that notifies the scientist the polarity of the light also instantly kills the cat. That way any time the superposition of the light collapses the cat is dead.

According to this article, if I understand it correctly, the scientist in one room could call up the scientist in the other room and tell him the measurement has been taken and the cat is dead.  But the guy in the other room could still be watching a monitor that has an alive heart beat since his reality still has the light in superposition.

Creepy.

If the scientist never shared the result of the measurement and the guy that "knows" the cat is alive walks over and pulls him out of the box in front of the guy that "knows" the cat is dead, what happens?

What constitutes an observer? Does the cat's observation influence the result? Maybe the cat has a say in it.

Now I'm imagining a Time Traveling cat returning from the future to get his revenge on the scientist


"The cat came back,
the very next day
the day before,
Yes, the cat came back,
He thought he was a goner..."
 
2019-03-12 09:23:56 PM  

Tranquil Hegemony: In Stephen Baxter's sci fi novels, humans in the distant future form a religion based on the Wigner's Friend thought experiment. The "Friends of Wigner" believe that at the end of time, there will come a point where only a single conscious mind remains in the universe, and that "ultimate observer" would collapse the universal wavefunction, but in a conscious way: being able to choose which of all the possible timelines would lead to the end, and the most ideal one would become the "real" timeline.

Not bad for a science fiction-based religion. Beats the hell out of $cientology.


The really interesting thing is this result fits with other observations we might live in a simulation.  Particles acting like probability functions would make sense in a simulation.  You don't resolve the probability function unless an observer is present to save computation time.  The majority of the universe may not exist at all (ie: not be rendered) because absolutely nobody is looking at it, it's just a function waiting to be computed.  This could explain why two observers each get their own "estimation" of reality... at a macro level, we're completely unaware of the discrepancies at the micro scale... we don't need to be aware of them.

I think I might be a "Friend of Wigner"
 
2019-03-12 09:28:00 PM  
SUMMOK THE CHOPRA!
 
2019-03-13 03:25:16 PM  
It almost sounds as if abstractions have a complicated relationship to reality.
 
2019-03-13 07:45:07 PM  

duckpoopy: Thankfully we live in the macroscale where these effects are nonexistent.


See: alternative facts.

This explains how one group can look at a small gathering at an inauguration and think it was the largest in history.
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report