SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956__
Study: There may be no such thing as objective reality
Everyone is entitled to their own facts. That's not an opinion. At least, according to a new quantum mechanics study.
What we view as objective reality – the idea that what we can observe, measure, and prove is real and those things we cannot are theoretical or imaginary – is actually a subjective reality that we either unravel, create, or dis-obfuscate by the simple act of observation.
A smarter way of putting it can be found in the aforementioned study, "Experimental test of nonlocal causality" conducted by lead author Martin Ringbauer and an international team of physicists and researchers:
Explaining observations in terms of causes and effects is central to empirical science. However, correlations between entangled quantum particles seem to defy such an explanation. This implies that some of the fundamental assumptions of causal explanations have to give way.
Also at The Conversation
(Score: 5, Informative) by maxwell demon on Monday November 18 2019, @11:25AM (7 children)
Note that I'm a physicist who has worked in the field for many years, so I definitely do know what I'm speaking about. And I actually read the linked scientific paper (well, at least the theoretical part; I'm assuming they did the experiments right). And I came to the conclusion that they don't show what they think they show.
Basically, they want to test causal influence by forcing the measurement result on one side of the entangled pair to be a specific value. Well, if they could do that, that would indeed be a great way to test causality.
But the point is, quantum mechanics does not allow that. Unless the system is prepared specifically to deliver a specific outcome, it won't deterministically deliver that outcome. You won't evade randomness. And entangled states never have a determined specific outcome for one of the observables involved in the entanglement.
But they claimed they forced it. So what did they do?
Well, what they did was to measure the system first in a way that doesn't reveal the value of the observable in question, but actually destroys that information, and then re-prepared it in the state guaranteeing the desired outcome, and then measured that (obtaining, of course, the desired outcome).
The problem is: That way they only proved that there is no causal relationship between the re-preparation and the measurement on the other side. But that's no surprise; quite the opposite. They already broke the entanglement the moment they performed the first, information-destroying measurement. If there was any causal link between measurements, it was enacted at that point, making it absolutely irrelevant what is done locally to the particles afterwards. There's no reason to assume that the subsequent re-preparation, or the measurement of that re-preparation, had any causal effect on the particle that formerly was entangled with the particle, but no longer was at the time of re-preparation or final measurement.
Note that I don't say that because I somehow want to save my world view; indeed I do believe that what they are trying to test is true: There is no causal influence. However I don't think their experiment is able to show it (nor is any other experiment whose result is consistent with quantum mechanics).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @01:09PM (5 children)
And on a quantum level they could be correct. Unfortunately that means fuck-all to everyday life on a classical physics scale which functions by entirely different rules, so they were trying for a catchy headline instead of telling the objective truth. When they can quantum entangle a pair of Buicks in a busy parking lot, then they can start talking shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Monday November 18 2019, @02:59PM (2 children)
Prof. Heisenberg, is that you?
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 18 2019, @03:48PM (1 child)
You're uncertain?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @02:03AM
What do you call an alt-right physicist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @10:44PM (1 child)
There. improved it for you.
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 19 2019, @03:54AM
The older I get, the less it takes to qualify for "at a distance".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday November 18 2019, @05:07PM
OK. But ignoring quantum theory, the basic conclusion is still a necessary consequence of both Bayesian statistics and psychology, independently.
N.B.: This doesn't mean you get the facts you want. This doesn't mean you get the facts you fear.
On the level of Bayesian statistics another way to say this is there are various sets of conflicting priors that cannot be reconciled with any possible evidence. This has been proven to be true via mathematical analysis.
I suspect the psychological variant of this conclusion is a necessary consequence of the Bayesian statistics version, but I've no way to prove it. It is, however, a frequently observed fact. (Try arguing politics with a committed left-wing anarchist.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.