Original Post
"Using an entangled pair of photons and an original but complicated method of weak measurement that does not interfere with the path of the photons, a significant step towards harnessing the reality of quantum mechanics has been taken by these researchers in Japan." 'Spooky Action At A Distance' Of Quantum Mechanics Directly Observed. This research demonstrates that nature is indeed real when unobserved, more specifically that Hardy’s paradox is, in fact, correct. When a particle meets its antiparticle, the pair always annihilate one another in a burst of energy, however, in some cases when their interaction is not observed a particle and an antiparticle can interact with one another and survive: I'm not looking, honest!. This research independently verifies earlier research from Canada, Physicists Resolve Confounding Paradox Of Quantum Theory, that employed a novel approach to observing quantum mechanical phenomenon termed weak measurement. Here is their lay description of their work on Hardy's Paradox: When you see without looking, can you trust what you see?. Here is their published paper on the subject: Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair. Here is the paper published by the Japanese scientists from the 'spooky action' article above: Experimental joint weak measurement on a photon pair as a probe of Hardy's Paradox. Here is a third party account of both papers that runs away with the implications: Less than zero. The indication is that parts of particles can exist as shadows, there and not there. From the Economist: "What the several researchers found was that there were more photons in some places than there should have been and fewer in others. The stunning result, though, was that in some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. Fewer than zero particles being present usually means that you have antiparticles instead. But there is no such thing as an antiphoton (photons are their own antiparticles, and are pure energy in any case), so that cannot apply here." Do these news accounts convey the findings of each paper accurately? Do these papers provide sufficient confirmation of metaphysical realism? Metaphysical realism is the hypothesis that the universe is presumed real independently of human observers. Epistemological realism is the hypothesis that no physical theory can be presumed valid unless its predictions are subject to proof in repeatable scientific experiments under controlled conditions. Do these papers provide evidence that wave function collapse is an artefact of the demands of mathematical formalism in quantum mechanics? That is, to say that wave function collapse "is not naturally present but is a product of an extrinsic agent, method, or the like", "a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures", "formed by artificial means", for example, the application of mathematical formalism in quantum mechanics? (See artefact) Do these papers challenge the principle of quantum indeterminacy?
