Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 18 2020, @12:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the one-way-to-find-out dept.

This Twist on Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox Has Major Implications for Quantum Theory:

What does it feel like to be both alive and dead?

That question irked and inspired Hungarian-American physicist Eugene Wigner in the 1960s. He was frustrated by the paradoxes arising from the vagaries of quantum mechanics—the theory governing the microscopic realm that suggests, among many other counterintuitive things, that until a quantum system is observed, it does not necessarily have definite properties. Take his fellow physicist Erwin Schrödinger's famous thought experiment in which a cat is trapped in a box with poison that will be released if a radioactive atom decays. Radioactivity is a quantum process, so before the box is opened, the story goes, the atom has both decayed and not decayed, leaving the unfortunate cat in limbo—a so-called superposition between life and death. But does the cat experience being in superposition?

Wigner sharpened the paradox by imagining a (human) friend of his shut in a lab, measuring a quantum system. He argued it was absurd to say his friend exists in a superposition of having seen and not seen a decay unless and until Wigner opens the lab door. "The 'Wigner's friend' thought experiment shows that things can become very weird if the observer is also observed," says Nora Tischler, a quantum physicist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia.

Now Tischler and her colleagues have carried out a version of the Wigner's friend test. By combining the classic thought experiment with another quantum head-scratcher called entanglement—a phenomenon that links particles across vast distances—they have also derived a new theorem, which they claim puts the strongest constraints yet on the fundamental nature of reality. Their study, which appeared in Nature Physics on August 17, has implications for the role that consciousness might play in quantum physics—and even whether quantum theory must be replaced.

Journal Reference:
Kok-Wei Bong, Aníbal Utreras-Alarcón, Farzad Ghafari, et al. A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox, Nature Physics (DOI: 10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 19 2020, @04:06PM (4 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 19 2020, @04:06PM (#1038864) Homepage
    You are assuming we have wavefunction collapse. That cannot be derived from the schrodinger equation. In fact, states evolving that way (collapsing) is contradictory to it. (One's linear, the other's nonlinear, as you kinda mention.)

    Not everyone assumes we have wavefunction collapse, you need to understand that you have chosen a particular interpretation of QM that includes it, and nobody knows whether you are right or wrong to so do. The discussion of "what is a measurement/observer" remains in the realm of philosophy not science presently, although if i'm interpretting the absrtact correctly, and this paper delivers what it promises, we are heading towards testable claims that will reveal properties of measurement that could decide the truth of the measurement postulate. (I'm obviously Popperist - not falsifiable implies not science.)

    Of course, all of these things aren't "the laws of physics" or "reality", they are mathematical tools that are currently the most useful for predicting how reality seems to behave, and one shouldn't forget that either.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:05PM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 19 2020, @11:05PM (#1039088) Journal

    You are assuming we have wavefunction collapse. That cannot be derived from the schrodinger equation. In fact, states evolving that way (collapsing) is contradictory to it. (One's linear, the other's nonlinear, as you kinda mention.)

    From observation, we do indeed have wavefunction collapse and it can get quite crazy [wikipedia.org]. The two slit experiment [wikipedia.org] is a standard example as well. This is model-independent.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:34PM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 20 2020, @02:34PM (#1039373) Homepage
      > From observation, we do indeed have wavefunction collapse and it can get quite crazy [wikipedia.org]. The two slit experiment [wikipedia.org] is a standard example as well. This is model-independent.

      Nonsense. Bohm and many-worlds interpretations don't rely on the concept existing at all. Even the Copenhageners were keen to stress that the concept was a mathematical model, and not necessarily anything "real".
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 20 2020, @11:40PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 20 2020, @11:40PM (#1039601) Journal

        Bohm and many-worlds interpretations don't rely on the concept existing at all.

        That's the thing about observations. They exist even if your models don't rely on them - or even predict that they shouldn't exist.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday August 22 2020, @08:20PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Saturday August 22 2020, @08:20PM (#1040512) Journal

          Every interpretation explains all observations, including those interpretations that have no wave function collapse. Therefore it is not true that we have observed a wave function collapse. What we've observed is phenomena which some, but not all, interpretations explain with a wave function collapse. Indeed, in some interpretations the wave function isn't even physical, which means that in those it is even conceptionally impossible to observe its collapse.

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.