Owen Maroney worries that physicists have spent the better part of a century engaging in fraud.
Ever since they invented quantum theory in the early 1900s, explains Maroney, who is himself a physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, they have been talking about how strange it is — how it allows particles and atoms to move in many directions at once, for example, or to spin clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously. But talk is not proof, says Maroney. “If we tell the public that quantum theory is weird, we better go out and test that's actually true,” he says. “Otherwise we're not doing science, we're just explaining some funny squiggles on a blackboard.”
It is this sentiment that has led Maroney and others to develop a new series of experiments to uncover the nature of the wavefunction — the mysterious entity that lies at the heart of quantum weirdness. On paper, the wavefunction is simply a mathematical object that physicists denote with the Greek letter psi (Ψ) — one of Maroney's funny squiggles — and use to describe a particle's quantum behaviour. Depending on the experiment, the wavefunction allows them to calculate the probability of observing an electron at any particular location, or the chances that its spin is oriented up or down. But the mathematics shed no light on what a wavefunction truly is. Is it a physical thing ? Or just a calculating tool for handling an observer's ignorance about the world ?
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-physics-what-is-really-real-1.17585
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Saturday May 23 2015, @12:37AM
I get what you're saying, but you're playing a game with numbers and our definitions of subsets of numbers.
When people say everything is probable in an infinite universe, what they generally mean is that every conceivable arrangement of matter and energy is going to spontaneously occur. Yes, you can still come up with a definition of some abstract-something that is definitionally impossible, but that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about matter and energy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:36AM
In which case the original statement has lost its original meaning of having no bounds and the new meaning is being derived from the subset that which could make the statement itself correct.