New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rigsby" data-source="post: 1248106" data-attributes="member: 7361">Spooky. Only a few days ago was I catching up on the latest research in Quantum physics. I've always been fascinated by it. I was nearly chucked out of Junior school at 8 years old for disrupting the class by trying to teach them the Standard Model of sub-atomic particles. And I've been at it ever since!I've come across some quite recent research which backs up what you've found here as well. Of  course it's all linked, but this thing that I've found seems to be a parallel to these experiments. Even though this is a different experiment by different people, it really does seem to back up the work of Rafael Chaves et al in the up and coming field of causal modeling. In this experiment he took Wheeler's (not Wigner) gedanken a step further again. There have been  experiments since 1999 that gave the shock result that Wheeler was right (they didn't have the scientific equipment to measure it at enough accuracy till then - so they waited a couple of decades). The upshot of this being that events in the future can influence events in the past. You must be familiar with Wheeler's delayed choice experiment: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed-choice_experiment</a>This is called retro-causality. And it breaks time's arrow and the second law of thermodynamics as I understand it with regard to entropy.It's a controversial idea for many obvious reasons. And Wheeler didn't think it existed:The retrocausal explanation, which Wheeler does not accept, says that with the detection screen in place, interference must be manifested. Several ways of implementing Wheeler's basic idea have been made into real experiments and they support the conclusion that Wheeler anticipated — that what is done at the exit port of the experimental device before the photon is detected will determine whether it displays interference phenomena or not. Retrocausality is a mirage.You can't perfectly piece that smashed vase back together after breaking it. Having said that I read an article in the Daily Mail about some Russian scientists actually really doing that. They broke times arrow as well. I'll try to dig it out. Remind me if I forget. Imagine all the pool balls on a table just reversing back in time after being smashed all over the table top. This counters the second law of thermodynamics of course and all that we believe about entropy: the propensity for all matter and energy to decay in to a chaotic state. That is why everything and everyone must die, and nothing lasts forever. Look on my works ye mighty...This really is very exciting, because even though this is obviously a related kind of experiment, it is in fact distinctly discrete from the works of Chaves. But with a very similar conclusion. And another parallel being the conclusion those other Russian scientists came to with their experiment.  Though really their experiment has proved the opposite of what they did: that you can travel back in time. Get used to contradictions. There is no sense in this world when you are trying to understand 'reality'.The double-slit experiment proved that observation causes the creation of a single reality which we presumed affected everyone, but in fact this experiment proves that parts of the observed reality will only exist for the local observer.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism</a>I'm struggling with the whole locality thing. There are just so many contradictions in all of this. There are in the experiments as well. And the scientists don't even agree among themselves. Does the fact that "this experiment proves that parts of the observed reality will only exist for the local observer" imply nonlocality?  Because all these experiments are leaning towards the de Broglie interpretation -<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics</a>Ah, fucking BINGO - GOTCHA! Right this makes perfect sense. I was getting confused by the term nonlocality and how it applies to the observer alone. It's a contradictory term. This is in total keeping with the bolded paragraph there. The key is: De Broglie–Bohm theoryMain article: De Broglie–Bohm theoryThe de Broglie–Bohm theory of quantum mechanics (also known as the pilot wave theory) is a theory by Louis de Broglie and extended later by David Bohm to include measurements. Particles, which always have positions, are guided by the wavefunction. The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrödinger wave equation, and the wavefunction never collapses. The theory takes place in a single space-time, is non-local, and is deterministic. The simultaneous determination of a particle's position and velocity is subject to the usual uncertainty principle constraint. The theory is considered to be a hidden-variable theory, and by embracing non-locality it satisfies Bell's inequality. The measurement problem is resolved, since the particles have definite positions at all times.[16] Collapse is explained as phenomenological.[17] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie–Bohm_theory</a>------------------------phenomenology (countable and uncountable, plural phenomenologies)    (philosophy) The study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.-------------------We are getting in to the whole philosophical Anti-Reality thing here as well. We've kind of left Quantum Physics and are in to philosophy, like anything when you dig deep enough. There is no reality. It's what you decide it is at the time, as you measure it. Funny ah?The nonlocality thing is important. It's a key corner stone to even begin to understand any of this. Keep with me. The whole De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is at odds with the more commonly accepted Copenhagen interpretation which is kind of the main yardstick with all of the different interpretations out there. Like I said, lots of contradictions. We are all in the wild here. The Copenhagen interpretation is the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg while collaborating in Copenhagen around 1927. Bohr and Heisenberg extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction proposed originally by Max Born. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position?" as meaningless. The measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function in a manner consistent with the well-defined probabilities that are assigned to each possible state. According to the interpretation, the interaction of an observer or apparatus that is external to the quantum system is the cause of wave function collapse, thus according to Paul Davies, "reality is in the observations, not in the electron". <a href="https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/" target="_blank">https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/</a>For Wiseman, the debate over Copenhagen versus de Broglie-Bohm in the context of the delayed-choice experiment is far from settled. “So in Copenhagen, there is no strange inversion of time precisely because we have no right to say anything about the photon’s past,” he wrote in an email. “In de Broglie-Bohm there is a reality independent of our knowledge, but there is no problem as there is no inversion — there is a unique causal (forward in time) description of everything."This last paragraph is key as well.Mind blown! You know I missed that 'quantum nonlocality' bit, in all honesty I didn't see it and there it pops up in the nut of what you are trying to explain. Like I said, it's central to understanding any of this. It's why I spent over an hour scratching my head with how it applies to the other stuff that is starting to make sense. The main core of De Broglie-Bohm theory is determinism and nonlocality. As per your post title: "There  is no objective reality" until it is observed subjectively, conjuring it in to life. Quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, information paradox. Local realism and nonlocality.Local realismEinstein's principle of local realism is the combination of the principle of locality (limiting cause-and-effect to the speed of light) with the assumption that a particle must objectively have a pre-existing value (i.e. a real value) for any possible measurement, i.e. a value existing before that measurement is made.  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism</a>Local realism is a feature of classical mechanics, and of classical electrodynamics; but quantum mechanics theories reject the principle, based on the experimental evidence of distant quantum entanglements: an interpretation that Einstein rejected (as being a paradox)So the evidence is mounting up more and more for Quantum nonlocality as espoused by De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Was Einstein wrong about that as well? Well, not wrong, just confused. Like the rest of us. Then again, he might have been wrong, and right at the same time. Or neither. Or both! Maybe one day we will find evidence for the Tachyon.A tachyon (/ˈtækiɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always travels faster than light. Most physicists believe that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[1][2] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon</a>The Many Worlds hypothesis is also a fascinating interpretation along with the Copenhagen and De Broglie-Bohm ones. Many-worlds interpretationIn the many-worlds interpretation, both realism and locality of action are retained,Realism. Local Realism. Anti-realism. Locality. Nonlocality. Yes. This post is already far too long. I'll put forward that parallel research I talked about earlier and how it ties in with the research that you presented. (sorry for any formatting issues. It's late and and that's a lot or word-salad to get through on my part - this is for my notes as much as anything else, but maybe some others can make sense of it.)Damn, I forgot how much of a bitch it is to debug HTML. I should have used an IDE for this post...</blockquote>

Verification