[HN Gopher] Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explana... ___________________________________________________________________ Experiments spell doom for physical-collapse explanation of quantum weirdness Author : pseudolus Score : 152 points Date : 2022-10-21 10:24 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | iainmerrick wrote: | _Falsification is hard work, and rarely reaches a tidy end point. | Even now, according to Curceanu, Roger Penrose -- who was awarded | the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on general | relativity -- is working on a version of the Diosi-Penrose model | in which there's no spontaneous radiation at all._ | | It's incredible how influential Penrose has been for such a long | time, and continues to be. As far as I can tell (I'm interested | but far from an expert) very few theorists are coming up with | genuinely testable ideas in this area. | lamontcg wrote: | Most scientists either blindly accept collapse as a mechanism | and then happily use the highly accurate math and don't care it | isn't testable, or if they think about it at all they adopt | something untestable like MWI and then happily use the highly | accurate math and don't care it isn't testable. Thinking hard | about testable theories in this area is incredibly slow | progress and doesn't pay a lot of bills | (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter- | higgs-...) | BirAdam wrote: | I was hoping the article would be about someone experimentally | porting Doom to a quantum computer, but... of course not. | ccvannorman wrote: | Not yet. | bottlepalm wrote: | I remember something about super determinism being a possible | answer to this. Do these results increase the likelihood of that? | kryptiskt wrote: | No, none of the other explanations predicts anything like this. | The theories that fell here predicted physical effects that | went beyond standard quantum mechanics. The others are playing | it safe and staying unfalsifiable. | Nihilartikel wrote: | I wasn't expecting them to be able to run Doom on a quantum | computer for at least another decade! | immmmmm wrote: | as a former physicist and quake engine modder, your joke is | very nice:) | | more seriously, having spent countless nights thinking of QM, | it feels a bit like Nature is playing w you and your nerves. | sillysaurusx wrote: | Replying to a now-deleted comment: | | > Is there a good ... idiots guide to interpretation of quantum | weirdness ? I am more than a little lost | | I've got you covered. And believe it or not, you'll be joining | Tiktok University today: | | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHqk6MP/ | | Tiktok has been quietly amassing a huge library of educational | content, and I've been diligently sorting those into collections. | I'll post several more related to physics. | | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHqLx2k/ | | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHqBn2L/ | | Why entangled electrons can't communicate information: | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHqBCLq/ | | Heisenberg uncertainty principle: | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHq8XN3/ | | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHqY49j/ | | A more advanced one: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHq2pYS/ | | And a break from quantum weirdness, just 'cause I like it: | https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRHqBQHE | | I have pages and pages of videos, so I probably shouldn't spam | them here. I can post more if there's any interest. | [deleted] | dmix wrote: | I often post on HN that TikTok offers much more to the world | than videos of girls dancing and silly pranks. It gives people | what they want (for better or worse) and adapts very very | quickly to tastes. | | Once it learns you're a science nerd it fills your feed with | some high quality educational content like this. The chemistry | stuff they have is also A+. | macintux wrote: | Perhaps a GitHub gist? I have a few collections that I share | here that way. | Comevius wrote: | Looking out for quantum consciousness in articles about quantum | physics would be a good drinking game, though here it is handled | with a proper amount of scepticism. | | The pressure is enormous for writers to include mumbo-jumbo, | because people click on these articles expecting to find out that | it's possible to alter the Universe with psyhic abilities, which | is how quantum physics is represented in social media, especially | TikTok. | omnicognate wrote: | Except that in this context it isn't mumbo-jumbo at all. It's a | falsifiable theory proposed by one of the most distinguished | mathematical physicists in the world, in the process of being | falsified. Perfectly respectable, though highly speculative, | science. | | The article didn't include it for lulz and clicks. It's | directly relevant. | thrown_22 wrote: | No one apart from Penrose took it seriously. You might as | well say that Russell's Teapot is falsifiable because you | only need to look through a finite amount of space to prove | it's not there. | yucky wrote: | Isn't it safe to assume that everything on TikTok is make- | believe though? | giraffe_lady wrote: | What is the point of this sort of joke? Just to confirm that | we all think of ourselves as superior to anyone using tiktok? | | It's probably overall neither much more or less reliable than | other social media like reddit, twitter, instagram and, sorry | boys, HN. | yucky wrote: | It's not a joke. Social media is heavily curated for a | specific agenda/angle (at best) and generally full of | dis/misinformation. Why on earth would _anybody_ consider | what they see on social media to be representative of | reality? | ThalesX wrote: | Having been passionate about this for awhile, I have a layman's | surface overview of the state of physics, or I like to believe | so. | | It amused me to no end when my elderly aunt came to ask me for | a tl;dr; on Quantum Physics. She stopped me shortly asking how | she can control the universe with her mind. | | I tried to explain a bit about the famous interpretation | (Copenhagen, not Von Neumann-Wigner) but she would have none of | it because the business course she just attended had a segment | on how to control the universe and proceeded to disregard and | mock me. | causi wrote: | What I don't understand is why we call it "observation" when | it should really be "interaction". The quantum weirdness | resulting from the collapse of probabilities has nothing to | do with a conscious observer, just whether and at what point | the phenomena in question interact with something else in an | observable way. | abecedarius wrote: | Well, an interaction that leaves a persistent change in | state in the "observer". | kgwgk wrote: | > What I don't understand is why we call it "observation" | when it should really be "interaction" [...] at what point | the phenomena in question interact with something else in | an observable way. | | That's why. If it's observable it could be observed by an | observer in an observation. | whimsicalism wrote: | Because when an object "interacts" with another object, it | goes into a quantum superposition with that object. It is | only when we _observe_ that we don 't see the | superposition. | | The obvious implication that people don't like to talk | about is that there is nothing special about observation, | it is just that our own body goes into superposition and we | only subjectively experience one of the quantum states. | kgwgk wrote: | > there is nothing special about observation [...] we | only subjectively experience one of the quantum states | | That subjective experience seem something special! | | There is nothing special about quantum superpositions - | they are pure quantum states like any other. They are | superpositions when we consider them in a particular | basis. How does the subjective experience project your | body - and the rest of the universe - onto one element of | the right basis? | [deleted] | hotpotamus wrote: | I don't really understand much of quantum physics - I'd say | as much as someone with a passing interest in chemistry would | need to (and that's pretty focused on what groups of | electrons get up to), but every once in awhile I'll read | about the actual problems and experiments that the old Nobel | laureates got up to and all of a sudden something will fall | into place. A big key was reading about the ultraviolet | catastrophe and how Max Planck basically just played around | with equations and sort of hit on quantizing energy levels | and almost accidentally invented quantum mechanics. If my | education had just been a history of all the discoveries in | physics from the end 19th to mid 20th centuries (and to be | fair to my education that was mixed in a bit), I think I | would have been served a lot better, but I also acknowledge | that could be down to my individual way of learning. | wongarsu wrote: | To be fair, the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really fit | today's world view. We have largely moved away from viewing | humans or "consciousness" as something special, so the notion | that an observer collapses the wave function just seems weird | now. | | "Many worlds" or "the wave function never collapses, you are | in a superposition" both make much more sense with how we | currently view the world | guerrilla wrote: | You're thinking of the Von Neumann-Wigner interpretation, | not Copenhagen. | ericmay wrote: | I'd say a good heuristic would be to include all mammals in | any theory about consciousness, wave function collapse, | quantum consciousness, etc. and then see if the theory | still holds up. If it does, you are probably on to | something. | | I think scientifically we will look back on "humans are | uniquely conscious" as a categorical differentiation | instead of a gradient with other mammals to be as absurd as | believing the earth is the center of the universe. "Unique | consciousness" is a quasi-religious mechanism we use at a | societal level to not run around all the time terrified of | death. | danielbln wrote: | > "Unique consciousness" is a quasi-religious mechanism | we use at a societal level to not run around all the time | terrified of death. | | It also helps us justify eating other lifeforms, mammals | included. | [deleted] | Comevius wrote: | No interpretation of quantum physics proposed by | scientists ever required a conscious observer, that's | more of a misinterpretation of what an observer is. It's | an interaction, not a person or animal. | | As for the theory of consciousness, of course we are not | special, it's information-processing, and it looks like | thermodynamics is responsible for the emergence of | information-processing structures. | | https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3271 | guerrilla wrote: | > No interpretation of quantum physics proposed by | scientists ever required a conscious observer, that's | more of a misinterpretation of what an observer is. It's | an interaction, not a person or animal. | | Are you saying that the Von Neumann-Wigner | interpretation[1] does not explicitly postulate | consciousness to be necessary for the completion of the | process of quantum measurement? | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wign | er_int... | Comevius wrote: | Those guys are excused, they were early on the floor, had | no idea what's going on. They grew up believing that | nature is deterministic, but quantum physics complicated | that picture a great deal. | | I should've said no interpretation in the 21st century. | snowwrestler wrote: | A mental trick that helped me understand the concept of | "an observer" in particle physics is to imagine it like | playing billiards in a pitch black room. | | In normal human-scale billiards, there are immense | numbers of photons flying around bouncing off everything. | The photon interactions are far too small to affect the | path of a moving billiard ball, but we can detect them | easily with our eyes. So we can use photons to passively | observe the balls rolling around. | | But when you're trying to observe a photon itself... | there are no tiny photon-equivalents flying around. It's | like playing billiards in pitch black: the only way to | know which direction a ball is rolling is to touch it. | And you can't touch a rolling billiard ball without | changing its path somehow. Likewise, you can't "observe" | a single photon without interacting with it in some way. | Comevius wrote: | This is a great analogy, but also in experiments the | presence or absence of the measuring device like a | beamsplitter determines the outcome. The measuring | device, the which-way detector is the observer, and it | can be regarded as a quantum mechanical system. It's | correlations with the rest of the system causes the | particle behavior. | JackFr wrote: | I know all analogies are imperfect, but that is a really | great one. It really captures the problem of observing so | elegantly. | Dx5IQ wrote: | Observer effect while applicable is distinct from Quantum | Weirdness aka Heisenberg Uncertainty | nemo44x wrote: | > As for the theory of consciousness, of course we are | not special, it's information-processing, and it looks | like thermodynamics is responsible for the emergence of | information-processing structures. | | That's a really interesting paper, thanks for that. It's | also a bit depressing to consider that there's a good | chance that everything we think that makes us special is | really just an emergent property of a thermodynamics | memory and prediction system. | Comevius wrote: | The Copenhagen interpretation never defined an observer | that way. It's a non-interpretation basically, just shut up | and calculate, which is still the most widely accepted | approach among scientists, since there are no other | falsifiable interpretations. | spywaregorilla wrote: | I'm reminded of learning about the grandfather paradox as | a kid. I recall hearing shit about scientists saying if | you were to travel back in time, you would be compelled | by a universal force to do things that don't alter the | future and create a paradox. Even as a kid, that sounded | so idiotic. In retrospect it was almost certainly the | reporting that was wrong. | iainmerrick wrote: | Is that really so weird? That's a very common version of | time travel in SF, perhaps the most common. You can | travel back in time, and you _think_ you 're changing | history, but through a series of unlikely coincidences | you end up being the person who created the history you | were trying to change. | | Come to think of it, maybe that's more common in short | stories, where the "gotcha!" format works. It's probably | harder to spin that unchangeable-history gimmick out to | novel length, whereas "you can change history and it has | endless weird side effects" can work well in long form. I | can't think off-hand of any time travel novels with | unchangeable history. | spywaregorilla wrote: | It's not weird. It's fun. | | But it's stupid as a serious time travel proposal. Things | like "travel in back in time 5 seconds unless you see | your future self is already there" create a hard paradox | that this logic cannot solve. Time loops are easily | broken by anyone interested in testing them. | wongarsu wrote: | Time loops are only a problem if you insist on being able | to simulate reality by computing the next time step from | previous ones, without discarding any. Or if you for some | reason insist on total free will. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > Or if you for some reason insist on total free will. | | Like, the free will to do something other than what you | saw your future self do? Yeah, you do have that. You have | that ability even as a completely deterministic brain. | | Heck you could send a machine to go back in time 5 | seconds that displays a number 1 greater than the number | it just saw its future self display from the previous | travel and your time loop has infinitely increasing state | with no human in the process. Or the mundane, send a bomb | back in time to destroy the time machine and your past | self. It's very easy to think of examples. | | > Time loops are only a problem if you insist on being | able to simulate reality by computing the next time step | from previous ones, without discarding any | | yes? | iainmerrick wrote: | You sound as confident as the protagonist of many a time | travel short story! | | _Edit to add:_ your comment reminded me specifically of | a Ted Chiang story, "What's Expected Of Us": | https://www.nature.com/articles/436150a | | I found that link via a blog post that excoriates it for | its supposed logical fallacies: | https://loopingworld.com/2019/07/13/debunking-ted-chiang- | rec.... I don't necessarily agree or disagree with that, | but I _do_ disagree that it 's "obviously" logically | wrong or inconsistent. | spywaregorilla wrote: | It's really just on them for trying to alter the future | in large ways before conducting small experiments to | understand the mechanics of the universe imo. | HALtheWise wrote: | If you frame the system as "the universe conspires to | create a series of coincidences such that no paradox | exists", then it makes perfect sense that nobody chooses | to run that experiment, because the simplest coincidence | that prevents the paradox is for the characters in | question to simply _not think_ to run that particular | experiment. This raises the obvious question of how the | time machine got invented in the first place, which seems | like a great story. | spywaregorilla wrote: | Sure sure. And it's fun fiction. But it's obviously not a | plausible physics explanation. | Aerroon wrote: | > _I can 't think off-hand of any time travel novels with | unchangeable history._ | | Harry Potter has this as a plot point in one of the | books. He essentially teaches/inspires himself to a spell | to save the day. | iainmerrick wrote: | Ah, yeah, good one. (Although more of a "novel that | happens to have time travel in it" than "novel about time | travel".) | spywaregorilla wrote: | Netflix's Dark is a good 3 seasons of a single nearly | stable time loop. | tsimionescu wrote: | The CI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with | consciousness. The CI view is simply "when a quantum system | interacts with a measurement device, the wave function of | the quantum system changes to one of some subset of real | values, with a probability given by the modulus of the | amplitude of that value in the wave function". Exactly what | constitutes a measurement apparatus is undefined, but it | certainly doesn't involve a human. | | In fact, it is precisely the MWI that requires human | observers for its explanations, at least to some extent, as | it makes the entire notion of a classical world a fiction | that only exists inside your own head because you are the | one that's getting entangled with a quantum system. Any | probability you compute in MWI is relative to you | personally, since in MWI any possible event happens with | probability 1 when checking at the universe level. | telmo wrote: | I also prefer the Many Worlds interpretation and I do think | that it is gaining popularity in relation to Copenhagen, | but I'm not sure what you mean by "today's world view". And | who is this "we" that you write about? | | I prefer Many Worlds because it is a simpler explanation, | so I follow Occam's razor. That's it. | | Consciousness and the existence of qualia remains a | fundamental mystery. There is something definitely special | about it, in the sense that it currently does not fit any | scientific model. It is also a deep philosophical problem | that started being considered millennia ago and dates at | least all the way back to Plato vs Aristotle. | | In my experience, people who think that consciousness is | somehow a settled matter simply haven't thought about it | enough and are perhaps a bit naive on the many | ramifications of the issue that have been explored do far. | MockObject wrote: | > I prefer Many Worlds because it is a simpler | explanation, so I follow Occam's razor. That's it. | | Zillions of new invisible universes being created every | moment is the simplest explanation you found? | tsimionescu wrote: | MWI is exactly as simple mathematically as CI, so not | sure what you mean by "simpler". | | MWI still postulates the equivalent of wave function | collapse, but instead of it happening only for the | quantum system being measured, it is happening in the | mind of the observer, as each "version" of that mind gets | entangled with a single "version" of the outcome. | | Even if you were to accept that this process is more | natural (so not an "assumption") than wave-function | collapse in principle, that simplicity completely falls | apart when you then need to recover the relationship | between the probability of observing a certain outcome | and the amplitude of that outcome in the wave-function. | | CI just says "when a quantum system described by a wave- | function interacts with a measurement apparatus that | measures in a certain basis, the wave-function gets | updated to one of the values of its decomposition in that | basis, with a probability equal to the modulus of the | square root of its amplitude in that basis". Of course | "measurement apparatus prepared in a certain basis" does | a lot of work here, as we don't know how to define this | in terms of a quantum system. | | To make a similar quantitative prediction, MWI needs to | define something like "the number of worlds", so that it | can then say something like "when a quantum system | interacts with a measurement apparatus prepared in a | certain basis, the measurement apparatus becomes | entangled with the quantum system such that for each | value of that basis state there is a number of worlds | proportional to the square root of the amplitude of each | value of the decomposition in which the apparatus sees | that particular value; if we were to compute the | probability that we happen to live in a world where the | apparatus is showing the value X, that probability would | naturally be higher the more worlds there are where it | shows this value X". So, the MWI has to actually | introduce extra elements (the worlds and their number, | and the observer wanting to compute a probability) to | explain the actual measured results of quantum | experiments. | whimsicalism wrote: | > you then need to recover the relationship between the | probability of observing a certain outcome and the | amplitude of that outcome in the wave-function. | | I have never understood how that is a strong objection. | We've experimentally determined that the state you are | more likely to find yourself in is based on the squared | amplitude. How is this different from CI but with | probability of observing given state - which was also | determined empirically? | | > Of course "measurement apparatus prepared in a certain | basis" does a lot of work here, as we don't know how to | define this in terms of a quantum system. | | Yes, this is where the Occam's razor bit comes in. | | > So, the MWI has to actually introduce extra elements | (the worlds and their number, and the observer wanting to | compute a probability) to explain the actual measured | results of quantum experiments. | | The worlds and their number are equivalent to the states | & probability of CI without having to introduce the | "measurement apparatus" that is distinct from the quantum | system. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | >MWI still postulates the equivalent of wave function | collapse | | It's not postulated, but deduced from the Schrodinger | equation. MWI is simpler in a sense that it has one fewer | axiom. But Occam's razor isn't really applicable here, | because it selects from otherwise equal theories, which | CI isn't. There are more important criteria to use before | Occam's razor. | didericis wrote: | Exactly. A related deep millennia old observation is that | no one has actually seen the real world. Everything we've | ever experienced has been filtered through our minds. | Every experiment, every measuring device, every | meticulously crafted model of reality... it is all | inescapably limited by what we are able to experience. | | One could and many have argued that the reality we've | been observing and operating in _is_ consciousness. The | "real" world could be entirely different and largely | inaccessible. | | These kinds of thought exercises don't have much | practical utility, apart from one very important feature; | they humble you. At the end of the day we don't | fundamentally _know_ anything, and should always | recognize that at its most basic root level, everything | we do is an educated guess. A fundamentally skeptical and | curious outlook that acknowledges our perceptual | limitations is how we got all of the sophisticated models | of very difficult to observe phenomenon in the first | place. If we want to continue to get the best | understanding of whatever it is we're experiencing, I | think it's very important to stay humble and ensure our | knowledge is treated as a hard earned set of well | reasoned guesses rather than unquestionable dogma. 99.9% | of objections to well established ideas and models might | be a waste of time entertaining, but you never know what | might turn out to be the seeds of a whole new universe of | understanding that invalidates huge swaths of our | existing corpus of knowledge. | | Most of what I'm saying here is probably obvious to a lot | of readers, and I don't think anyone in this thread is | being particularly arrogant or dogmatic, but I think it's | worth reiterating. If people who understand the limits of | knowledge aren't constantly emphasizing the fact that we | don't know what we don't know, that creates fertile | ground for both dogmatic assertions and unreasonable | skepticism, and I think a huge amount of dysfunction in | the culture at large is explained by insufficient well | calibrated humility amongst otherwise very intelligent | people who set an example for others. | ben_w wrote: | What surprises me is not that many people think | consciousness is a settled matter; but rather, people | who, when faced with the claim that "consciousness" isn't | settled, are so often tempted to assert that it _is_ that | they rapidly provide another example of how it _isn 't_. | dizzant wrote: | > We have largely moved away from viewing humans or | "consciousness" as something special. | | Who is "we" in this comment? Christianity and Islam | emphasize consciousness and the uniqueness of human | experience, and their adherents still account more than 50% | of the population. | | As much popularity as the many worlds theory is gaining, | the generic "we" almost certainly still doesn't believe it, | and many (most?) probably don't even know about it. | masteranza wrote: | This article is a perfect example how science is getting led into | dark areas by people who didn't learn quantum mechanics right or | people who pretend to understand it, but can only blindly follow | the formalism without much understanding of what they actually | do. Every such article continuous to mysticize the whole subject | by quoting famous scientists who were either puzzled by it at the | time or scientists like John von Neumann who clearly gave a | dumbed down view of the now called collapse (perhaps on request | to skip the math). | | I really appreciate this forum - as it is one of the last places | that I know of where one can have a civil discussion - and | therefore I will take the effort to show that pure quantum | mechanics - with no additions - essentially explains the process | of measurement which is not at all sudden as the name "collapse" | would suggest. The reasoning comes from von Neumann himself, but | now sometimes it's attributed also to Wojciech Zurek. | | TLDR of below: All processes in nature, including the measuring | process are unitary, the "collapse" is just an artifact of our | ignorance about the exact state of the measuring aparatus. Here | it goes: | | For simplicity, let's assume that psi describing our particle is | a superposition of two eigenstates: |psi> = c1 |1> + c2 |2>, | i.e., |c1|^2 + |c2|^2 = 1. Without loss of generality we can | pick: c1 = x and c2 = sqrt(1-x^2) exp(i phi), where x is a real | number smaller than 1. The density matrix of this pure state can | then be written as rho = |psi><psi| and one by writing the | explicit form of this density matrix one can see that the | diagonal terms are: x^2 and 1-x^2, while the non-diagonal terms | are: x _sqrt(1-x^2) exp(i phi) and x_ sqrt(1-x^2) exp(-i phi). | | In the most complete scenario of a measurement, the density | matrix of the system can change change in many ways including the | diagonal terms of the density matrix. However in this simplistic | example, a measurement will by necessity, bring only the non- | diagonal terms to zero (I hope most of the interested readers | will have enough background to understand why). | | Now, the measuring device, as a macroscopic object, will have the | number of degrees of freedom far greater than the simple particle | which's state we're about to measure. This number will be the | order of the Avogadro number (~ 10^23) - even the smallest human | visible indicator will be this big. The measurement, by | necessity, includes an interaction of our small system with the | enormous measuring device. | | Before the interaction the whole system (the particle and the | measuring device) can be written as a tensor product of the two | wavefunctions: | | |Omega_before> = |Psi> [?] |Xsi> = ( c1 |1> + c2 |2> ) [?] |Xsi> | | where |Xsi> represents the wavefunction of the measuring device | and everything it interacts with before the measurement. When the | interaction occurs the state of our measuring device changes | unitarily (as everything in nature) according to the full | Hamiltonian of the system, and with some regrouping of the terms, | we can write the state after the interaction as: | | |Omega_after> = c1 |1> [?] |Xsi_1> + c2 |2> [?] |Xsi_2> | | This is the true state of the system as performed by nature. The | individual subsystems are no longer in pure states, but the whole | system |Omega_after> (if we're able to completely describe it) - | is. | | Now, comes the final part, which some call the "collapse", but in | reality it is just "an average" over all possible states of the | bigger (measurement) system *which we declared apriori to not be | the system of interest and states of which not able to follow | because we measure with it*: | | Tr_{over the degrees of freedom of Xsi} | |Omega_after><Omega_after| | | In result we obtain a matrix after the measurement which is just | formed with the diagonal elements x^2 and 1-x^2, i.e., the | probabilities of the two measurement results and non-diagonal | terms being equal to zero. | | Why are they zero? Let's inspect one of the non-diagonal elements | over which the above trace is taken: x*sqrt(1-x^2)exp(i phi) | <Xsi_1|Xsi_2> | | It is effectively zero, because the trace over the degrees of | freedom of Xsi is a mutliple integral, again of the multiplicity | of order of Avogardo number and a similar number functions which | change in various ways. It is enough that only a fraction of such | integrals will have a value lesser than 1 to guarantee that the | product will be equal to zero. | | And this is all. Any attempt to change this fact would need to | reject quantum mechanics completely, because probability calculus | is at the heart of it. | thrown_22 wrote: | This is just _one_ interpretation of wave function collapse and | the only thing it has going for it is that the dimensionality | in which collapse happens can always require another particle, | which adds another complex degree of freedom, and always | remains out of the realm of what we can compute. | | Two particle interactions show nothing like wave function | collapse, neither to three of four. Until you say a reasonable | number of particles that make up the measuring apparatus where | we should see _something_ weird starting to happen | theoretically you're not even wrong. | masteranza wrote: | Nothing "weird" starts happening. Unitarity evolution is | never broken, there are just rules in quantum mechanics that | could perhaps be grouped under supplementary framework | related to how we, macroscopic entities, extract information | from it. | dzdt wrote: | There is an often-repeated statement that different quantum | mechanical theories are equivalent. This is an over- | simplification. Is wave function collapse is a real thing or just | an approximation of what happens when a large system is | entangled? | | Some smart people have tried to make theories where wave function | collapse is a real thing. These new experiments are working to | rule out those ideas. | | My feeling is that Everett's "many worlds" interpretation is the | clear favorite: there is no wave function collapse. | zhouyisu wrote: | A interesting deduction: | | By making quantum computer, we are making us into Schrodinger's | Cat. Which entangles our destiny to a quantum possibility. | | Such as a highly sophiscated military quantum computer which | decides war and peace on quantum computing. | | It must be very fun to observe us from a Alien Species's angle. | spywaregorilla wrote: | Quantum computing is a means to avoid checking wrong | solutions en route to solving certain types of problems. | Seems very unlikely for this kind of decision to ever depend | on a quantum computer. | pred_ wrote: | > Is wave function collapse is a real thing or just an | approximation of what happens when a large system is entangled? | | I've listened to enough Carroll to convince myself that I think | MWI makes sense, but what I never got is that it doesn't seem | to offer much in terms of explanation of how the entangled | state ends up being what it is: We see a particular result of | an experiment with many possible a priori outcomes, but is | there a mechanism that determines which particular entangled | state we end up in? Something like the phases of the wave | functions on individual Hilbert space sectors conspiring to | produce a certain outcome, so that an omnipotent observer with | full access to both parts would be able to tell what happens a | priori, no dice being rolled? Or is that just hidden variable | theory? | krohling wrote: | > it doesn't seem to offer much in terms of explanation of | how the entangled state ends up being what it is: | | According to MWI, all possible results of an experiment are | manifest and real. You're asking "which particular entangled | state we end up in?". You end up in all of them. For a | 2-state superposition system, there are 2 versions of "you" | that exist after the experiment, both of which are equally | real. Subsequent measurements of the quantum system will | appear to be "collapsed" for both versions of you but each | will see different and opposing values. | lamontcg wrote: | > You end up in all of them. | | Except that I've only ever experienced ending up in one of | them, so exactly how did the "I" that is typing this right | now wind up here, and not in some other branch? | | There's an unexplained bifurcation of consciousness implied | by MWI which it cannot explain (although I think it | suggests the appeal of MWI since it gives enough wiggle | room that people think that their free will could control | which universe they wind up in, which appeals to everyone's | inner Malcolm Gladwell). | GoblinSlayer wrote: | You end up in all branches and your consciousness ends up | in all branches, where your mind works. MWI works best | with physicalism, yep :) | | Maybe your copy in another branch even posted the same | comment. | lamontcg wrote: | But how does bifurcation of consciousness happen and how | does it diagonalize the state so that we never see a cat | in a complex linear superposition of |alive> and |dead> | at the same time? 1/sqrt(2) |alive> + 1/sqrt(2) |dead> | should be an equally valid outcome of the experiment via | purely unitary evolution. | Filligree wrote: | That's just hidden variable theory. The answer for MWI is | "all of them". | bnralt wrote: | > There is an often-repeated statement that different quantum | mechanical theories are equivalent. | | Worse than that, I'd say that "physical collapse" is usually | presented to the general public as established scientific fact, | even by prominent scientists that know better. | jfengel wrote: | That's right: the "collapse" interpretation is an | approximation. | | You can derive if from the MWI. We already know that the | "worlds" separate and almost completely cease interacting. The | interactions decrease to the order of "two to the power of | Avogadro's number" almost immediately. The collapse | interpretation rounds that to zero (at some arbitrary point). | | To make that more concrete you have to add a term to the | equations, making it theoretically testable, but it's | remarkable that anybody could manage to test it in practice. | It's clever to use a neutrino detector -- something designed to | measure ludicrously small amounts of interactions. | | I don't think anybody is surprised by the results, just that | they could get any. The un-physical arbitrariness of the cutoff | caused problems from the get-go. | | I was going to say that it doesn't make MWI any more palatable, | though I suppose it does. They've detected the other branches, | albeit in a very indirect way. They're real. But they're just | as inaccessible as they ever were. | | You still need the concept of decoherence to make it work. The | unstable equilibrium can't hold for large objects. That's both | mathematically and physically sound. | mjan22640 wrote: | Could the other branches be our dark matter? | jfengel wrote: | No. They don't behave at all like dark matter. Among other | things, there's no reason for them to be distributed in a | halo, nor for some galaxies to lack them. | plutonorm wrote: | Broad statements, do you have the time to elaborate? | gus_massa wrote: | The Milky Way and other similar galaxies look like spiral | drawn in a thick 2D disk. | | The dark matter halo looks like an invisible 3D ball | around the thick 2D disk. | | Something like | https://www.google.com/search?q=dark+matter+halo&tbm=isch | simonh wrote: | Dark matter affects some galaxies, but the rotation of | others is completely explained by the observable matter. | Why would one galaxy be influenced by its many worlds | twins, but not another? | jameshart wrote: | Sci-fi plot concept answer: because one galaxy is | populated by sentient life, and the other isn't. | tremon wrote: | Quarantine by Greg Egan explores this concept (the many- | worlds theory, without the dark matter). | pdonis wrote: | _> You can derive if from the MWI._ | | Not as an actual physical process, no. "Collapse" in the MWI | just means that, once the "worlds" have decohered, within | each "world" the wave function can be collapsed to the one | that describes the measurement result observed in that | "world", for purposes of predicting future results. But in | the MWI this is just a mathematical convenience and doesn't | correspond to anything physically happening. | | In the theories being tested by the experiments described in | this article, though, collapse is an actual physical process: | there is only one "world". This contradicts the MWI. | | _> They 've detected the other branches, albeit in a very | indirect way._ | | What experiments are you referring to here? | whimsicalism wrote: | > doesn't correspond to anything physically happening | | It corresponds to the inner product of the two branches of | the wavefunction going to 0 due to physical phenomenon. | pdonis wrote: | That is decoherence, not collapse. Collapse, as a | physical process, would be all of the branches but one | ceasing to exist. | whimsicalism wrote: | Oh I misread your comment - I thought you were referring | to decoherence as the mathematical convenience. Now that | I see that it was collapse, definitely agree. | dchichkov wrote: | If quantum computers would work, it would be very difficult | to explain "where" the computation happens without having | some sort of MWI into picture. But if, somehow, quantum | computers keep their noise levels up without producing any | interesting acceleration I'll expect that a theory would | emerge at some point explaining that. And it may disambiguate | which interpretation is the one. | tsimionescu wrote: | Quantum computers are easy to explain in CI as well: they | simply exploit certain numerical properties of complex- | valued probabilities (unlike the real-valued probabilities | of classical probabilistic Turing machines). | andrewgleave wrote: | The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian | Quantum Theory: | | https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02048.pdf | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | I don't see how relabelling "collapse" to "separation" and | adding more or less infinitely proliferating universes solves | the problem. | | MWI also contradicts itself. Supposedly the universes are | independent, but if their influence doesn't define the wave | equation they do nothing to help explain it. | | It's a very strong and exceptional claim with absolutely no | evidence to support it. "Feeling" isn't enough. | Lichtso wrote: | > I don't see how relabelling "collapse" to "separation" and | adding more or less infinitely proliferating universes solves | the problem. | | MWI isn't just renaming the collapse. Copenhagen is | fundamentally different in that exactly one outcome is | somehow chosen / selected and all others cease to exist. In | other words Copenhagen has to add / invent some information: | Which world to pick and when to do so. MWI simply avoids | having to pick by continuing every branch simultaneously and | recursively. | | Meaning that MWI is actually a simpler theory and shows that | the selection is unnecessary and all problems that come with | it can be avoided. In that sense, the burden of proof lies | with Copenhagen IMO and it just gives handwavy answers that | the selection process somehow involves a conscious observer, | whatever that is ... | | > MWI also contradicts itself. Supposedly the universes are | independent, but if their influence doesn't define the wave | equation they do nothing to help explain it. | | In MWI the wave function IS the integral of all possible | outcomes / worlds / branches. In that sense they don't just | influence it, they define it. Not sure how that is | contradictory. | | Btw, the same goes for Copenhagen in the state of super | position as well. So, they are identical up to the point | where Copenhagen selects one (collapses) and MWI simply | carries on. | kgwgk wrote: | > Copenhagen is fundamentally different in that exactly one | outcome is somehow chosen / selected and all others cease | to exist. | | In MWI exactly one outcome / branch is somehow what we see | and all others cease to exist to us. MWI just gives | handwavy answers about how it is so. | Lichtso wrote: | It follows by contradiction of the opposite statement: | Lets say that all "you"s across all branches perceive all | the other branches as well. That means that they do | influence each other. In other words they are not | separated and never where different outcomes to begin | with. | | But, all the interpretations of quantum mechanics start | with the axiomatic assumption that the universe is modal | and that there are different possibilities / outcomes. | They only differ in if they chose to turn hypothetical | outcomes into real outcomes or simply let everything be | equally real from the get-go. | | And yes, even superdeterminism has to deal with / model | hypothetical outcomes. It just says that some of them | cancel out each other early on as they would lead to | inconsistencies in the future otherwise. | krohling wrote: | I don't believe "feeling" has anything to do with the MWI | interpretation. At least I've never heard it described that | way. | | Given the equations that describe quantum mechanics (ie | Schrodinger equation) MWI is essentially the "null | hypothesis". No equations that describe collapse have ever | passed the rigor of experiment and all collapse theories | require modifications to the mathematics of QM. The burden of | proof here is on theorists that support collapse theories not | proponents of MWI. | kgwgk wrote: | > MWI is essentially the "null hypothesis" | | Null hypothesis in the sense of not producing any | predicition? /joking | | I agree with the grand-parent that substituting a | "collapse" that we cannot understand with a "separation" | that we cannot understand doesn't seem a big step forward. | c1ccccc1 wrote: | It's not just a relabelling. In collapse theories, the | wavefunction stops obeying the Schrodinger equation for a | moment and discontinuously jumps to a new state. The times | when it performs a discontinuous jump are called | "measurements", though this doesn't necessarily mean there's | a scientist sitting there with a ruler, it just means that | the system has interacted with its environment sufficiently. | In the many worlds theory on the other hand, the wavefunction | continues to obey the Schrodinger equation for all time, and | the natural result of this is that the wavefunction becomes | very complicated and entangled, so that the motion of atoms | here on Earth is very entangled with photons heading away | from us at the speed of light out into deep space, along with | pretty much everything else. But there's no mention of | "separation" or "worlds" in the basic description of the | theory; the one sentence description of many worlds is "the | wavefunction obeys the Schrodinger equation all the time with | no exceptions". | | Where the worlds come in is that it's impossible to do | calculations on the wavefunction of the entire universe, so | we need to come up with a way of dividing it up into | manageable pieces. Not because the theory requires that it be | divided into pieces, but because otherwise we couldn't handle | the math. The worlds are one of the ways we do that: We break | the wavefunction of the universe into approximately | perpendicular components that don't interfere with each other | very much and don't have too much entanglement making them | hard to understand, and we call those worlds. We can further | simplify things by just looking at a subsystem of the | universe rather than the entire universe, which involves | taking a partial trace (this tends to introduce randomness). | As time goes on and entropy increases, the entanglement and | complexity even within a "world" will continue to increase | and at a certain point we may notice, "hey, this component is | really complicated now, and it can itself be divided into | subcomponents that are approximately orthogonal and don't | really interact with each other much, I can simplify my | calculations by treating those as separate worlds now". This | is what we mean when we say that worlds tend to split apart, | but since the worlds are only approximately orthogonal and | independent, when you define splitting is really a matter of | how much error you're willing to allow in your calculations. | (Also, the process of splitting is driven by increasing | entropy, so when (if?) the universe reaches a point of total | heat death and entropy stops increasing, this will also imply | that the worlds have stopped splitting.) | | So I'm not sure what you mean by "strong and exceptional". | It's just math, and can be compared with experiment just like | any other piece of physics. Take the experiments done in the | original article. If any kind of collapse had been observed, | then that would have straight-up falsified the many worlds | theory. Many worlds says that physical systems can become | entangled with their environments, but their wavefunctions | can never just collapse, and these two cases are | distinguishable in a careful experiment. Since collapse | wasn't observed when these tests were done, that provides a | little bit of evidence in favour of many worlds. | | Falsifiability is a little more complicated for collapse | theories. People don't agree on the exact definition of a | "measurement", and what level of interaction with the | environment is required to trigger a collapse, but in order | to have a falsifiable theory, it's important that we have a | precise, mathematical definition of when a collapse should | happen (this definition does not have to be deterministic, it | could just give us a probability distribution). So various | people have put forward different definitions, and it sounds | like these experiments have ruled out a bunch of them, but | obviously they haven't ruled out every collapse theory put | forwards by every physicist ever. It's a bit like when the | LCH failed to find any supersymmetry particles, and some | physicists were like, "okay, but in my version of | supersymmetry, the particles are heavier than the energies | reachable by the LHC so of course we wouldn't expect to have | seen them". | criddell wrote: | > My feeling is that Everett's "many worlds" interpretation is | the clear favorite | | But what are the worlds? | | My feeling is that Max Tegmark has it right. Everything is | mathematics. | im3w1l wrote: | We can detect their presence because they cause interference | with our own. | naasking wrote: | Circular. You have to already accept many worlds to take | this as evidence of worlds. You can argue for Many-Worlds | on grounds of parsimony and clarity, but that's it. | im3w1l wrote: | No I don't think so. Many worlds is basically the | hypothesis that we can put arbitrarily large systems in | superposition. Like schroedingers cat that is both dead | and alive, but instead it could be the whole lab, the | whole planet, the whole galaxy that is simultaneously in | two different states. We could test this by trying to | actually do it, by putting really large and complex | systems in superposition. If they both evolve as we'd | predict and cause the interference patterns we predict, | then we must conclude that these "other-labs", "other- | planets", "other-galaxies", "other-worlds" evolve just | like ours, and have a causal effect on ours. | | Saying that sure, they evolve like ours, and sure they | affect ours, but even so they are not real - that is I | suppose one stance, but then you are getting pretty close | to solipsism. | criddell wrote: | > We could test this by trying to actually do it, by | putting really large and complex systems in | superposition. | | Is there any hope that one could actually do this? The | article mentions that large systems may be self-observing | (via gravity). | GoblinSlayer wrote: | I thought there's a quasi-classical approximation of | quantum gravity, it doesn't work only for event horizon | due to infinities there, but should work fine for diffuse | matter, like how most calculations for electron orbitals | use classical electromagnetic field. | naasking wrote: | > Saying that sure, they evolve like ours, and sure they | effect ours, but even so they are not real - that is I | suppose one stance, but then you are getting pretty close | to solipsism. | | No, you'd get something like Bohmian mechanics, or | Rovelli's relational interpretation. Which is my point: | you can only take this as evidence of other worlds if you | basically smuggle those assumptions in. | spywaregorilla wrote: | Mildly different wobbled electrons. | criddell wrote: | And what are the electrons? AFAIK, they are excitations | within a quantum field. And what's a quantum field? Each | layer down seems to get closer and closer to pure | mathematics. | | I wish I understood it better. | d_tr wrote: | > I wish I understood it better. | | Me too but... It would still be some form of mathematics | as soon as you tried to write it down in a neat, precise | way for others to understand it. Maybe exotic math, but | still math :p | plutonorm wrote: | Just go full Idealism. All things that can be - just are. A | block universe, of all possible things and all possible | interrelation of things. A giant timeless crystal of qualia. | It's pretty obvious to me now. | | One location in the latent space of a latent diffusion model | is a view into a universe that is as real as ours. That half | cat, half dog monstrosity you accidentally created. It exists | as a drawing, or as a physical mass of flesh, with every | possible back story as to how it got there. And also every | possible future. | | edit- brain fart | herdcall wrote: | Check out "superdeterminism," first proposed by Bell (of Bell's | inequality fame) himself and currently being vigorously pursued | by Sabina Hossenfelder. There is no "collapse" per se according | to this model and everything is really classical with hidden | variables, and the entanglement comes because everything shared | the same origin (the big bang). A very fascinating and in my | opinion the best explanation, though it's extremely | controversial and taboo because of its implications on free | will (e.g., I see no mention of it at all in this article). | iainmerrick wrote: | I have never fully understood that idea, even after reading | Hossenfelder's posts about it. The idea that there's a "block | universe" and everything is predetermined is comprehensible, | sure; but what's the exact mechanism by which Bell's | inequality is violated in experiments? Doesn't that require | the universe to have been carefully set up to look as if it's | acting in a weird non-local way, on an experiment-by- | experiment basis? I assume I am just misunderstanding the | idea, though. Any suggested reading material much | appreciated! | superposeur wrote: | Agreed -- superdeterminism is not so much a theory as a | theory-for-a-theory at this stage (a vague guess at the | form such a theory might take). | | It is a sign of the much greater maturity of the physical | collapse models that their parameters can be constrained by | experiment. The ability to be constrained is a _good_ sign, | not a bad one. | | I love John Preskill's standard nod to superdeterminism in | his writings: without mentioning it by name he says "I | leave it up to the reader to decide how seriously to take | this possibility" (get it?) | naasking wrote: | I think the right way to look at it is that | superdeterminism is an umbrella term for a _class_ of | theories that have a certain property. Like some | interpretations of quantum mechanics are "psi-ontic", | meaning the wave function is considered physically real | (like many worlds), vs. "psi-epistemic" where the wave | function is considered a reflection of our knowledge of | reality (Copenhagen). | naasking wrote: | We had a recent thread about an article from Tim Palmer who | has a good take on this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223391 | | The idea is that the natural laws are fractal, which when | mapped out trace many state space configurations. But with | a fractal there are always gaps in state space that remain | no matter how much you zoom in or out; fractals preserve | certain structural invariants at all scales. | | So the idea is that counterfactual reasoning sometimes | fails in a fractal universe, because statistical | independence no longer works as a general rule (your | counterfactual could lie in one of those gaps). He first | published this idea in 2009 under the name "invariant set | postulate": | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_set_postulate | | His paper with Hossenfelder is also a good overview: | | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.0013 | 9... | | Superdeterminism gets an unnecessarily bad rap. | iainmerrick wrote: | _Superdeterminism gets an unnecessarily bad rap._ | | If determinism is true, don't you mean "necessarily"? :) | pdonis wrote: | _> Doesn 't that require the universe to have been | carefully set up to look as if it's acting in a weird non- | local way, on an experiment-by-experiment basis?_ | | Yes. That is a big reason why most physicists do not favor | superdeterminism. | geertj wrote: | I am not so sure. In my understanding of the block | universe, causality doesn't really exist, and the | universe is simply a consistent solution with boundary | conditions both at the beginning and at the end of time | (as well as in space). | | The game of life is perhaps a nice analogy here. On the | 2d grid of the game of life, a glider seems moving in a | certain direction when time moves forward. But in the 3d | grid, where time is the third dimension, a glider is just | a static volume of space. | | The reason we experience time is that the evolution of | the block universe does depend on the dimension you look | at (e.g entropy generally increases in the positive time | dimension), and because our consciousness is an emergent | property of a self-sustaining structure within the block | universe, it's plausible at least that we perceive | movement in time different from movement in space. I | realize this is very sloppy wording but I'm having | trouble finding better words to describe my intuition | here. | pdonis wrote: | _> In my understanding of the block universe, causality | doesn 't really exist_ | | That's one way of interpreting it, but superdeterminism | does not entail or require this. Superdeterminism can be | formulated just fine for a universe that evolves in time | from some initial state according to causal processes. | kgwgk wrote: | > what's the exact mechanism by which Bell's inequality is | violated in experiments? | | It's not violated - it simply doesn't apply because it's | predetermined that the measurements that are done work well | together. The experimenters follow the script. | inwit wrote: | That a serious scientist can believe this leads me to | consider the economic benefits of believing such | nonsense, rather than prompting me to examine it further. | Just total rubbish | kgwgk wrote: | We should be merciful with superdeterminists: they don't | have a choice! | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | Even without superdeterminism free will is a concept that | only makes any sense in specific contexts. To say otherwise | is to introduce God of the Gaps style woo. | ffhhj wrote: | Free will is about choosing what binds us, as we can't | choose being free of matter without becoming inmaterial. | EamonnMR wrote: | The notion that a probabilistic world enables free will in a | way that a deterministic one doesn't still confuses me. A | coin I flip isn't exercising free will. | dilap wrote: | Could free will be explained as super-physical phenomena | that "haunts" the physical world, w/ choice manifest as | which of the branching many worlds' paths consciousness | "chooses" to experience? | | E.g., I am in some universe taking every possible action | right now, but I'm only _experiencing_ the actions which I | "chose" to take. | kgwgk wrote: | > Check out "superdeterminism," first proposed by Bell (of | Bell's inequality fame) himself | | "Proposed" - but as something that avoids the issue but it's | not worthy of much consideration. - I was | going to ask whether it is still possible to maintain, in the | light of experimental experience, the idea of a deterministic | universe? You know, one of the ways of | understanding this business is to say that the world is | super-deterministic. That not only is inanimate nature | deterministic, but we, the experimenters who imagine we can | choose to do one experiment rather than another, are also | determined. If so, the difficulty which this experimental | result creates disappears. - Free will is an | illusion - that gets us out of the crisis, does it? | That's correct. In the analysis it is assumed that free will | is genuine, and as a result of that one finds that the | intervention of the experimenter at one point has to have | consequences at a remote point, in a way that influences | restricted by the finite velocity of light would not permit. | If the experimenter is not free to make this intervention, if | that also is determined in advance, the difficulty | disappears. | sebastialonso wrote: | Is superdeterminism even falsifiable? | naasking wrote: | Is Many-Worlds even falsifiable? | GoblinSlayer wrote: | Discovery of non-linearity in the evolution operator | would falsify MWI. Like e.g. this germanium experiment | gave a positive result. | naasking wrote: | Yes, because it falsifies every interpretation of quantum | mechanics not just MWI itself. I think in context here, | "is superdeterminism falsifiable" is as silly a question | as "is logic falsifiable" or "is causality falsifiable". | Specific mmathematical, causal or superdeterministic | models are always falsifiable, but the idea that | superdeterminism as a whole is not falsifiable should be | no more surprising or interesting than the fact that | logic is not falsifiable. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | If superdeterminism allows specific models. The idea is | that the experimenter's behavior is fine tuned so he | can't discover superdeterminism, which means | falsification would be a paradox by definition. | naasking wrote: | Given we can enumerate all possible models because we can | enumerate all possible Turing machines, we clearly have | enough degrees of "freedom" in this universe that that | isn't an issue. | tshaddox wrote: | David Deutsch seems to think that a general intelligence | running on a quantum computer ought to be able to observe | itself existing in parallel worlds if many-worlds is | true. | naasking wrote: | I'm skeptical that Deutsch actually meant that, but even | smart people have crazy ideas. | tshaddox wrote: | He wrote a pretty well known article about it that as far | as I can tell wasn't written off-hand and hasn't been | retracted or disavowed. I'm pretty confident he meant it. | ffhhj wrote: | > observe itself existing in parallel worlds if many- | worlds is true | | If many-worlds is true, we are already observing | ourselves in each of those universes in which we can | observe, we just don't communicate with our replicas. And | if the AGI can communicate with its other instances, the | exponential replicas will quickly overload their channel. | tshaddox wrote: | I think the point of the claim is that a general | intelligence running on a quantum computer would make | _different_ observations if many worlds is true versus if | many worlds is false. | xwolfi wrote: | Which sadly means nothing, so many details being hidden | behind the words "general", "intelligence", "running", | "quantum computer", "ought", "oberve" and "existing". | | If you could refine what these words all mean, I guess we | could understand it as something more than "Deutsch seems | to think that yes", which can replace your sentence | entirely, "yes" describing it all as precisely. | | I am myself, in some ways, a general intelligence running | on a quantum computer but I dont feel like I can observe | myself existing in a novel special way. Let alone being | able to then express it for you in a way that is novel as | well. | tshaddox wrote: | Most of those words don't cause definitional problems | here any more than they do for all other scientific tests | which involve general intelligences (humans) making | observations about things that exist. "Quantum computer" | is a unique term that doesn't show up in every | description of a scientific experiment, but as far as I | know it doesn't have a particularly ambiguous definition. | | And while you are indeed a general intelligence, I don't | think you're running on a quantum computer. | kanzenryu2 wrote: | Hopefully this is on point https://www.lesswrong.com/post | s/DFxoaWGEh9ndwtZhk/decoherenc... | whimsicalism wrote: | > though it's extremely controversial and taboo because of | its implications on free will | | Uhh, no. Essentially all existing physical theories are | devastating for any non-compatabilist account of free will. | tsimionescu wrote: | > it's extremely controversial and taboo because of its | implications on free will (e.g., I see no mention of it at | all in this article). | | "True" free will is ruled out by all existing physical | theories, so that's not why it's controversial. The bigger | problem with superdeterminism is that it wants to explain | physics without assuming statistical independence, even for | far away events. | drewrv wrote: | I'm a fan of hers but I think many of her criticisms of | string theory, multiverse stuff, etc, apply equally well to | superdeterminisim. | | That being said, in her latest book she has a pretty strong | argument against free will that does not require | superdeterminisim so if that sounds interesting check it out. | rubidium wrote: | Many worlds is just some peoples favorite because they get too | weirded out but indeterminism. They prefer a billiard ball | universe and so invented the hairbrained many worlds theory. | ravi-delia wrote: | Or- and hear me out with this one- they prefer an explanation | which follows naturally from existing experiments and doesn't | require a hacked together non-linear irreversible operation | which occurs only under bizarre conditions exactly when | needed to patch over experimental results. No one in the | whole world cares if the universe is deterministic or not, | but collapse is embedded in an _entirely_ deterministic | system. MWI may not be right, but collapse is wrong. | shadowfox wrote: | > MWI may not be right, but collapse is wrong. | | Such confidence ... I envy that. | nil-sec wrote: | It's quite nice to have something irreversible though. It | gives you time. Also nobody really thinks QM is the end of | it, assuming semi classical physics under the hood is just | odd to me. There is something below QM that we don't | understand yet (AdS/CFT looks like a good start to me) and | personally I think the whole interpretation of QM debate | will look stupid in retrospect. Yeah collapse is odd, but | it just shows us this isn't it. Reality is much weirder | than we thought and giving up on realism is just the | beginning. | jobs_throwaway wrote: | > No one in the whole world cares if the universe is | deterministic or not | | lol | tsimionescu wrote: | Actually, if you eliminate collapse entirely as a non- | linear operation, then you have a new huge problem for QM: | there is plenty of non-linearity in the universe (e.g. | double pendulum experiments, not to mention GR), and QM | predicts that there shouldn't be any non-linearity at all, | if you eliminate wave function collapse/the Born postulate. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | Hmm... is de Broglie wave linear? Trigonometric functions | don't look very linear to me. | macrolocal wrote: | Eh, these are models, not reality. The Many-Worlds | interpretation makes the fewest assumptions, so it's probably | the least prone to over-fitting. | | Until we find philosophically or experimentally distinguished | ways to pare down its ontological cost, working with most | general theory is just keeping an open mind. | lupire wrote: | Disproving some form of _measurable_ wave function does not | provide evidence for MWI, which is unmeasurable and untestable | nearly by definition. | Diggsey wrote: | Only if you assert that the other worlds are in some way | "real". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many- | worlds_interpretation#Deb... | | The MWI is a simpler theory than other interpretations | because it does not require "collapse" to be a physical | process. The "realness" of the other worlds is untestable, | but also not part of the theory. | | "unreal" MWI should be the null hypothesis given what we know | to be true about quantum mechanics. If we find evidence that | collapse is a physical process then we can reject it, but | otherwise it makes the fewest leaps. At the moment the | Copenhagen intepretation is taught instead, which is a | problem. To quote wikipedia: | | > There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen | interpretation | | And | | > the device used to observe a system must be described in | classical language, while the system under observation is | treated in quantum terms | | In other words, it does allow you to predict the result of an | experiment, but we know it can't be right because it's | impossible to formalize without building this "classical | observer" into the model. Attempting to build on this | inevitably leads to metaphysical nonsense about | consciousness. | | In "unreal" MWI there is a universal wave function, and | something is "real" to us if it is entangled with us. The | "many worlds" terminology makes it easier to visualize but | doesn't mean those other worlds are real because whether | something is real is subjective in this interpretation. | Subjective reality may be a problem for some people, but if | you look at the evolution of physical theories, we | consistently find that everything is more subjective than we | thought it was (see also: relativity). | c1ccccc1 wrote: | Wait, I'm pretty sure that if these measurements had shown a | collapse, that would have to be taken as disproving many | worlds. You can't very well have many worlds when your | wavefunction is physically collapsing all the time before | those worlds can diverge. So it is actually kind of testable, | since a test was just performed that could have ruled it out. | Maybe you're saying that it's untestable relative to | _unmeasurable_ collapses of the wavefunction. But if those | collapses are contrived to be unmeasurable, doesn 't that | make them kind of, well, pointless? | fallingfrog wrote: | Well, the thing is that the MWI is actually simpler than all | the other interpretations, because it simply removes the idea | of wave function collapse entirely. Any theory involving wave | function collapse is adding something _extra_ to quantum | physics that can 't be demonstrated experimentally. | | Because we live in the macro world, it _feels_ like a single | unitary reality is simpler, but actually, the MWI makes fewer | assumptions. So I would turn that around and put the burden | on the _other_ theories to show that collapse is real, the | default position should be MWI. | lamontcg wrote: | > Any theory involving wave function collapse is adding | something extra to quantum physics that can't be | demonstrated experimentally. | | Title article is literally about trying to test those | theories experimentally. | fallingfrog wrote: | ..And failing to find any evidence of collapse. Hence | "can't be demonstrated". I didn't mean "can't be looked | for" I meant that attempts to find it have not been | successful. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | You don't think postulating an unknown number of extra | universes with a very poorly defined relationship with each | other qualifies as an extra assumption? | pdonis wrote: | The MWI does not postulate extra universes, although that | pop science description is unfortunately common even | though it is wrong. The MWI just says that the one | universe that exists is actually very, very different | from what we perceive. (To be clear, I'm not saying this | correct description makes the MWI any more palatable. I | am just clarifying exactly what kind of unpalatableness | the MWI requires.) | ryeights wrote: | Can you elaborate on this? The Wikipedia page for MWI | says | | >The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are | most likely an uncountably infinite number of universes. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation | d_tr wrote: | Not the parent, but I 'd say this amounts to how you | define a "universe". There is a single wavefunction which | says that one "copy" of you observes result A and another | "copy" observes result B. Using the phrase "many | universes" implies that these two scenarios are | considered as "different universes". I personally do not | like this phrase and find it misleading. | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | You are all the "copies", and, under certain conditions, | can experience all their observations. Think of yourself | more as an aspect of a multifaceted being experiencing | the universe through you. | pdonis wrote: | _> under certain conditions, can experience all their | observations_ | | What conditions are these? | olddustytrail wrote: | Let's say we generally subscribed to the flat earth | theory. But that causes many problems with our actual | measurements. So someone proposes the "many earths" | theory, where there are many flat earths connected at | different angles. | | If you could travel between these many earths, you could | even end up in one - let's call this mythical land | "Australia" - where South was up! | | Sounds a bit crazy but some people believe it could | really exist. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | Those worlds are states in superposition, the term | "world" is an allegory to help people understand that | those states don't interact due to linearity of the | Schrodinger equation, because not all properties of | linearity are obvious. | pdonis wrote: | One should not be trying to learn physics from Wikipedia, | particularly not for something as complicated as QM, even | more particularly not for an aspect of QM as contentious | as the MWI. | | The MWI says that there is one single universal wave | function, which evolves in time by unitary evolution | forever, and that that universal wave function is all | that exists. That is one universe, not an infinity of | them. It is just one universe that is nothing like what | we think we perceive. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | We perceived flat earth and geocentrism, so not the first | time. I can recommend quantum electrodynamics to people | who are too attached to corpuscular paradigm. | kgwgk wrote: | "The MWI" is not one thing. There are many-people saying | many-things about those many-worls. | d_tr wrote: | It is the other way around. The "universes" are there | when you solve the equations, and you can either let them | be or keep only one by invoking the collapse. | | The collapse amounts to just setting some terms to zero. | sfink wrote: | Only to the extent that MWI is actually a _position_. My | understanding of MWI is: shit happens, and there 's no need | to understand why specific shit happens because all shit | "happens" (by a definition of "happens" that carries | basically no meaning) and you should be happy just to prove | that the shit that happens is among the full set of shit | that could happen. It's the "don't worry your pretty little | head over it" theory of reality. | | Here's the best poem ever written, or that will ever be | written: Roses are red Violets | are blue MWI stinks And so do you. | | Don't think it's that great? Well, that's because there | exist other versions of me that wrote different words up | there, and you just happened to read a version that wasn't | that great. | | I hereby accept my position as God Poet of the Universe. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | Shit happens because that's how the state of matter | changes over time, the wave function is the description | of the state and the Schrodinger equation is the | description of the state's change. That's as complete and | happy understanding as it goes. | tsimionescu wrote: | It is not simpler, since MWI still needs the Born postulate | to actually predict the results of quantum experiments. It | replaces this idea of the wave function collapsing with a | redefinition of what a measurement apparatus / observer is | (in MWI, a measurement apparatus exists in a single | "branch" of the wave function). | | This is especially problematic because QM doesn't predict | any particular decomposition of a quantum state into | particular classical states. That is, the Schrodinger | equation doesn't actually predict that a particle has some | amplitude here and some other amplitude there, as is often | presented; instead, it predicts that it is described by | some vector which can be decomposed in many different ways. | You can say it has some amplitude X here and some amplitude | Y there, but with any 2 points in space-time (adjusting the | amplitudes). Or, it can have some combination of position | and spin with amplitude X, and some other combination of | position and spin with amplitude Y. You can choose any | basis you like for the measurement, and you will get the | corresponding answer. | | But, for MWI to actually predict experimental results (and | the classical world we live in) you not only have to choose | to look at a single element of that basis, but you also | have to believe that the classical basis is somehow | preferred. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | >This is especially problematic because QM doesn't | predict any particular decomposition of a quantum state | into particular classical states. | | It does predict it, this decomposition is called | decoherence, where a classical state splits into a | superposition of several different classical states. | pdonis wrote: | _> this decomposition is called decoherence, where a | classical state splits into a superposition of several | different classical states._ | | No, that's not what decoherence is. Decoherence is the | spread of entanglement over a very large number of | untrackable degrees of freedom (usually referred to as | the "environment"). This makes interference effects | unobservable. But decoherence itself does not involve any | "splitting"; the entanglement that decoherence spreads | over a very large number of untrackable degrees of | freedom has to already be there before decoherence can | act on it. | GoblinSlayer wrote: | AFAIK the largest molecule to show quantum behavior in | experiments is somewhere at 100 atoms. I suppose that's | all "environment" you need for a large number of degrees | of freedom. | | And yes, spread of entanglement does mean splitting. | Entangled state is not factorizable, because all states | in it are split. This splitting is the result of | splitting of the initial state. | pdonis wrote: | _> I suppose that 's all "environment" you need for a | large number of degrees of freedom._ | | No. The 100 atoms is the largest molecule that we can do | experiments on _without_ having decoherence happen and | ruining our attempts to observe interference. | | The number of degrees of freedom in the environment is | many orders of magnitude larger, something like 10^30 or | more for a typical experiment. | [deleted] | lebuffon wrote: | Don't tell anyone, but in the back of my mind I wonder if what we | call quantum mechanics has something to do with the rendering | engine in this simulation we find ourselves in. | | Is quantum collapse just us "catching" the engine deciding what | to render when we observe something? :-) | licnep wrote: | I have very little knowledge of quantum physics, but in my mind | there is some similarity between quantum phenomena and backward | raytracing in computer graphics. | | In forward raytracing, images are rendered by "shooting" | photons from all lightsources and seeing which ones end up | hitting the player's camera. This is similar to what we think | happens in nature, but the calculation is extremely | inefficient, because the vast majority of photons never hit the | player's viewpoint. | | In backward raytracing, we only shoot "photons" backwards from | the player's camera, and see which rays end up hitting a light | source. This computation is much more efficient. | | It makes me wonder if our "simulation" uses a similar shortcut | phailhaus wrote: | That's my interpretation as well, except I'd go a step further | and say it's time-independent based on what we've seen of | quantum entanglement. There's no reason to resolve a particle's | state if it's not interacting with anything, but once you do | you can safely define the entangled pair's state retroactively | because it hasn't interacted with anything either. | | So what we end up seeing is that after you measure one | particle, the other _behaves as if it always had the | complementary value_. It 's not faster-than-light spooky action | at a distance, it's more akin to reality "resolving" to a | consistent time-independent state. | macrolocal wrote: | Maybe, but it would be a highly non-classical computer. | Probably it could cheaply render the most physically plausible | paths to specified outcomes, and quickly factor large primes. | | Nb. quantum also highlights assumptions made by our brain's | rendering engine. | axilmar wrote: | Perhaps the collapse happens when all the quantum fields are | activated at a particular point in their coordinate system. | | I.e. if we have 3 fields, with respective coordinates [0, 1, 2], | [1, 2, 3] and [2, 3, 4], a particle emerges only when the 3rd | point of field A, the 2nd point of field B and the 1st point of | field C, all with value = 2, are activated. | | If the quantum field activations happen periodically, but their | periods do not match, or the fields have different granularity | when they are activated, then we may get a wave-like outcome for | particles, since the interactions of all the fields happen only | when the fields are synchronized at specific points in their | history. | | EDIT: | | Writing the above made me realize that the underlying fabrique of | the universe may work like a neural net, where each possible | point in the universe is actually a node in a neural net, and | each node has multiple fields connected to each node, and values | flowing into the fields excite the nodes based on a function, for | example accumulation. When a limit is exceeded in a node, a | particle is created, or a particle disappears (for black holes). | | A neural net of such proportions could be called ...God (yeah, I | said it, sorry...I don't believe in a God but the parallelism is | interesting, at least to me, from a philosophical perspective). | im3w1l wrote: | In true collapse-of-the-gaps style, what if collapse happens when | an entangled system becomes so large that the edges of it are | outside of each others event horizons due to cosmic inflation? | rocqua wrote: | Why would that force collapse? I would almost expect that the | lack of communication over those distances forces _more_ | uncertainty (i.e. a wider probability distribution) rather than | less uncertainty. | im3w1l wrote: | It's kind of a joke, which is what I meant by -of-the-gaps. | If two particles are outside of each others event horizons, | they can't communicate so you can't tell whether they are | entangled (AA or BB) or whether the system has collapsed into | say AA. | bowsamic wrote: | I think you mean expansion rather than inflation (inflation is | something that happened very briefly at the beginning of the | universe). In models with collapse, the collapse happens | instantaneously, no matter what | cb321 wrote: | As with any unsettled questions there are pros & cons to the | various takes on quantum reality. Part of the appeal of MWI | (intrication of observer into observed system as part of the | measurement process) to me was always that the | instantaneousness you mention here is a very "ordinary" kind | of "fastness by synchronization". It's basically just a kind | of causal wavefront hitting. | | There are plenty of "infinitely fast" synchronization effects | like this..some perhaps less obvious than others, but many | pretty pedestrian and accessible to lay people. Neither the | junction of a scissors or the "spot light" on clouds need be | constrained by light speed, for example. People routinely | abuse "nothing" (or maybe "go") in the " 'nothing' can 'go' | faster than light" saying. :-) | kgwgk wrote: | > intrication of observer into observed system as part of | the measurement process | | That was already part of von Neumann's model of measurement | over 90 years ago. | cb321 wrote: | Yeah. Perhaps most charmingly treated here: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12671 { EDIT: though surely | many other places! There are also YouTube videos of this | one, though, and Sidney Coleman was really a Feynman- | class edutainer, perhaps as under-recognized as von | Neumann is relative to say Everett on this topic :-) }. | | I should perhaps have used the word "entanglement" rather | than "intrication". Oops. | gus_massa wrote: | If you have only one particle of the entangled pair, you can't | do any experiment to check if they pair is still entangled or | someone else has done something to the other particle and broke | the entanglement. Someone else is not necessarily a person. May | be a device or just a brick. | | In a common case, when you measure your particle you get 50% | "yes" and 50% "no". So if you have a stream of particles that | are one half of an entangled pair, you just get a random | sequence. | | It doesn't matter if the other half is still flying happily in | vacuum, got into a detector like the one you have, or it just | hit a wall. You just get a random sequence. Otherwise, it could | be used to build a FTL "walkie talkie". | | If you later can talk with someone in the other side that | measured the other half of the pairs, then both of you can | compare notes and notice that the two random sequences are | equal or oposite or something in between according to which | experiment each of you have done. | im3w1l wrote: | Dang I low key have a problem here because I already | mentioned it was a joke and gave the same explanation, but | because this is the top reply and the comments both show | n-hours ago it looks like I walked back my statement in | response, and I think it's fair to say that this is why the | original comment got a down vote and ended up at the bottom. | gus_massa wrote: | After reading your comment again, now I'm wondering how | does the variation of QM discussed in the article handle | the special cases you mentioned. | | In the usual QM the explanation is "easy" because the | collapse is magical. | | But if they want to eliminate the magic and propose a | underlying "physical" process for the collapse then they | have nasty problems and FTL transmission. | mkaic wrote: | Looking forward to the PBS Spacetime coverage of these | experiments in about 2 weeks time, I'm sure they'll do an | excellent job explaining them. | markisus wrote: | This tidbit about a prodigious undergraduate struck me. He double | majored in math and physics and was about to start his PhD at | Harvard. And in a sudden freak accident he was gone from | existence. The universe will always remain unfathomable in some | ways. | | > In 1996, Qijia Fu of Hamilton College in New York -- then just | an undergraduate -- proposed using germanium-based neutrino | experiments to detect a CSL signature of X-ray emission. (Weeks | after he submitted his paper, he was struck by lightning on a | hiking trip in Utah and killed.) | whimsicalism wrote: | Seems perfectly fathomable to me. | addaon wrote: | Reminds me of a golden age (?) science fiction short story -- | no idea the author or name -- about a spate of suicides and | mysterious deaths among physicists who got too close to "the | truth," externally caused by an alien force trying to keep | humans in their petri dish. | cbruns wrote: | Sounds like Three Body Problem. Not golden age though. | abecedarius wrote: | It's an Asimov story whose title I forget. The truth in | question was a defense against nuclear bombs. | HALtheWise wrote: | Breeds There a Man...? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeds_There_a_Man...%3F | addaon wrote: | That's it! Thanks! | | Clearly left a mark on my memory. | royaltheartist wrote: | Oh great, now they've got Doom running at the Quantum level | EGreg wrote: | I like PWT because other theories don't rule out FTL propagation | of things, either, and PWT just assumes it. It is far less weird | than for example the many worlds explanation. | gus_massa wrote: | Note that this was not the "mainstream" explanation. It was not | even the most popular explanation. | | Everyone agree about the math, but there are a few | interpretations of quantum mechanics. All are weird and | equivalente, so it's not possible to make an experiment to decide | which one is the correct one. | | There are a few attempt like this to extend QM and get a less | weird theory, but it looks like this failed, at least with the | more simple model for the extension. Anyway, most people just use | "Shut up and calculate". | bowsamic wrote: | I have a PhD in theoretical quantum optics and I can assure you | that it absolutely was (and still is) a mainstream explanation | | EDIT: I misread the article, I thought it was about whether | collapse occurs in general, not about physical explanations for | collapse | pfortuny wrote: | Yep: the article seems to say "there is no collapse" (in the | title) but then it turns out to say "collapse as explained by | these models may not be". Two very different things. I was | caught as you by the title. | gus_massa wrote: | I was initially confused too. | lupire wrote: | Please explain the mistake in the article. | | > The experiments find no evidence of the effects predicted | by at _least the simplest varieties_ of these collapse | models. | pfortuny wrote: | No, the mistake is in the _natural interpretation of the | title_. The title seems to imply "collapse is not a | thing", whereas the article is about "these explanations of | collapse do not hold". | bowsamic wrote: | I have no idea, sorry | awinter-py wrote: | ugh the actual news event being covered in this article is a 2022 | result[1] confirming a 2020 result[2] both of which 'set a lower | bound' on this theory by penrose. 'set a lower bound' means they | didn't find it. | | this article is credulous -- yes, this _may_ exist and semi- | serious people are looking for it, but pls don 't confuse 'we | haven't found it yet' with 'current science suggests this is very | small'. | | how small?! at least admit that your theory doesn't predict an | energy level. 'Current science suggests that bigfoot dwells in | the places we have not yet looked'. Also put the newest paper in | the first paragraph, don't make me dig through recirc links, ugh. | | 1. | https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.12... | | 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4 | [deleted] | stevenally wrote: | Quantum mechanics is a useful model in some contexts. It is not | reality. | | Other models are useful in other contexts. | | Reality is unknownable. But we can always use better models. | iNic wrote: | "The map is not the territory" - Korzybski | hilbert42 wrote: | _" If there is indeed a background perturbation that provokes | quantum collapse -- whether it comes from gravitational effects | or something else -- then all particles will be continuously | interacting with this perturbation, whether they are in a | superposition or not."_ | | This makes eminent sense to me. | | I have a notion that I'll try to present in its simplest form | which is that a quantum system exists in background 'sea' or | 'substrate' akin to random noise whose maximum fluctuations are | of themselves insufficient to disturb or perturb said quantum | system. | | Without this noise an 'event' such as a particle, photon etc. | would perturb the quantum system in a predictable way thus it | would 'collapse' into a predictable outcome (according to | understood physics). | | As the noisy substrate permeates and superimposes on everything | it randomizes the 'collapse'. Of course, we'd have to invoke | notions such as virtual particles zero point energy, Casimir-like | effects--even then, saying that is a gross oversimplification | without much additional amplification. Perhaps it's best just to | say that essentially a noisy fluctuating background environment | would perturb and randomize an otherwise predictable quantum | system. | | Again, like many of these theories, I've little to support my | idea except intuition--and with quantum mechanics relying on it | is a very dangerous thing to do. | vpfaulkner wrote: | From a layman's point of view, it seems like we grasping at | straws when it comes to these thorny quantum questions. Is fair | to say, for example, that we are about as clueless as our | ancestors were with the bubonic plague? | | To a non-expert it can be difficult to separate which theories | lay on solid ground and which theories are highly speculative. | resoluteteeth wrote: | > From a layman's point of view, it seems like we grasping at | straws when it comes to these thorny quantum questions. Is fair | to say, for example, that we are about as clueless as our | ancestors were with the bubonic plague? | | > To a non-expert it can be difficult to separate which | theories lay on solid ground and which theories are highly | speculative. | | Sure, but isn't that the point of doing these experiments? | vpfaulkner wrote: | I'm all for trying to understand these phenomena and running | these experiments. Just trying to get a sense for how much of | a grasp we have on these phenomena. | | Based on the other responses, it seems like we can | mathematically model these phenomena very well and make very | good predictions. However, when it comes to explaining why | these phenomena exist in the first place, we are like a | medieval doctor trying to explain why antibiotics work. | ravi-delia wrote: | That would not be fair, though it's understandable why a layman | might feel that way. The fact is, most physicists don't | particularly feel the need to have an explanation for that kind | of thing. We have the math, and most people agree on how to use | it to make very accurate predictions. Collapse was always a | little silly, but there are other possibilities as to why you'd | get that kind of effect just from wavefunctions. | bee_rider wrote: | "It's only a model" Patsy says, but then they cut to a whole | big song and dance routine, so it must be a pretty good | model. Or course it is unsurprising that Monty Python's Holy | Grail would provide deep physics insights, they were a pretty | clever bunch. | whimsicalism wrote: | It's like we had miasma theory of disease, but miasma theory | was actually highly accurate at predicting disease. | | So... not really like how our past misunderstanding of disease, | which was useless as well as being wrong. | lamontcg wrote: | > which theories are highly speculative. | | So QM itself is on very, very solid ground. You're using it now | on your computer. | | The interpretations of QM and the attempts to reconcile the | exceptionally well tested mathematics of QM and the reality | that we experience which is not-QM at all are all philosophical | with zero evidence. Everyone just tries to make compelling | arguments based on things like Occam's razor about why their | horse is the best one in the race without actually knowing | anything at all. | | We have place a few bounds around things like Bell's inequality | so we know that local hidden variable theories are ruled out, | but that is about it. | | The title article is very interesting because its one of the | first few actual tests to probe if there really is a transition | between QM reality and classical reality. Regardless of who | actually wins the horse-race the important thing here is that | there's slow progress being made on trying to experimentally | test theories. This is why I've always liked the Penrose models | of collapse better than the MWI models since the former have | some chance of being actually testable, while with MWI you just | blindly decide it is true or not and then you argue a bunch | about philosophy and never do any experiments, which isn't | science. Penrose models of collapse might be wrong but at least | they're in principle testable, which is incredibly exciting | about this article. | c1ccccc1 wrote: | Many worlds is absolutely testable, since if we observe | collapse in even a single one of these experiments then that | completely falsifies many worlds. If one of these experiments | discussed in the article had actually observed a collapse, | then I have no doubt we'd be seeing headlines like "many | worlds theory disproven", and Nobel prizes for the physicists | involved. It would be the biggest discovery in physics for | decades. | lamontcg wrote: | You don't get there from WMI though. You get there from | trying to prove collapse happens and testing some other | theories predictions. | simonh wrote: | QM is hard to visualise, but we have extremely sophisticated | equations and principles for determining how quantum systems | will evolve, and can engineer complex functioning systems using | that knowledge. For example transistors only work because we | understand QM well enough to precisely engineer the energy | level state behaviour of electrons in semiconductors. | | It would be like accidentally discovering antibiotics during | the plague. You might not know how it works or why, but you | know what it does and it absolutely gets the job done. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-21 23:00 UTC)