Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Spooky Vision


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
9 replies to this topic

#1 LessBread   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1411

Posted 27 April 2009 - 03:41 PM

"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?

Sponsor:

#2 shurcool   Members   -  Reputation: 439

Posted 27 April 2009 - 06:10 PM

Interesting. :/ (this gives me something to think about with regard to my simplistic theories of the world)

#3 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6966

Posted 27 April 2009 - 06:28 PM

My head just exploded.

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#4 owl   Banned   -  Reputation: 364

Posted 27 April 2009 - 07:41 PM

If I saw Jesus walking through a wall into my room, I wouldn't believe it. Not even after touching the scars on his hands myself.

If the impossible is possible, all the world I've constructed for myself would collapse.

#5 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 27647

Posted 27 April 2009 - 07:43 PM

Wait, you can observe quantum systems without affecting them? Look without touching?

#6 Dmytry   Members   -  Reputation: 1147

Posted 27 April 2009 - 08:45 PM

Quote:
Original post by LessBread
"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?

Accurately not, okay enough yes.
Quote:

Do these papers provide sufficient confirmation of metaphysical realism? Metaphysical realism is the hypothesis that the universe is presumed real independently of human observers.

I don't see how this study can have any belief-changing effect on people whom believe that universe is not real independently of human observers. TBH, I find non-realism very nutty in the solipsist direction.
Quote:

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.

Hmm. I think you got it in reverse.
Historically, physical theory is presumed valid until a repeatable, confirmed experiment is done which contradicts the theory. (of course theory may contradict existing experiments and thus be immediately invalid)
Experiment that is in agreement with theory may vaguely improve our confidence in theory, and prove that theory is within specific range from reality, in particular circumstances, but is no proof.
Furthermore, whenever two theories are both valid, simpler theory has to be preferred over more complex theory; this is just common practical sense among scientists which existed long before Occam, but which somehow came to be known as "Occam's razor".
Quote:


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)

Well, the view that is becoming more and more common is that collapse is merely a trick for obtaining correct observed probabilities without applying quantum mechanics to internals of observer, without considering observer+experiment as single system. That it is an artificial trick to get a single observer rather than many observers which quantum mechanics naturally predicts as outcome of interaction.
Quote:


Do these papers challenge the principle of quantum indeterminacy?

Perhaps.
The equations of evolution of wave function are deterministic; but them give you complex-valued results. There is a very strong cognitive bias against considering something like that real, reflected even in the terminology (see imaginary numbers vs real numbers).
When some very weird outcome of quantum mechanics is shown true, it perhaps undermines this bias a little.

[Edited by - Dmytry on April 28, 2009 3:45:43 AM]

#7 Eelco   Members   -  Reputation: 301

Posted 28 April 2009 - 12:33 AM

Im not sure im getting what is so important about this experiment. But then again, if they wanted to convince me of that, why are they only talking about how important their work is, rather than what it actually is?

To have any opinion whatsoever on the reality of unobserved events is just silly. Personally, i didnt need quantum mechanics to push these facts into my face in order to figure that out.

Anyone who claims an unobserved event did happen is a quack. Anyone who deduces from this that unobserved events do not happen is equally moronic. Ever hear of the fallacy of the excluded middle?

I cannot disprove god. That doesnt mean he exists: that means the concept of an unobservable entity/event/whatever is ridiculous.

#8 LessBread   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1411

Posted 28 April 2009 - 06:27 AM

Quote:
Original post by Dmytry
Quote:
Original post by LessBread
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.

Hmm. I think you got it in reverse.
Historically, physical theory is presumed valid until a repeatable, confirmed experiment is done which contradicts the theory. (of course theory may contradict existing experiments and thus be immediately invalid)
Experiment that is in agreement with theory may vaguely improve our confidence in theory, and prove that theory is within specific range from reality, in particular circumstances, but is no proof.
Furthermore, whenever two theories are both valid, simpler theory has to be preferred over more complex theory; this is just common practical sense among scientists which existed long before Occam, but which somehow came to be known as "Occam's razor".


Subject to disproof then. Epistemological realism isn't important to these papers. I just had it in my notes next to Metaphysical realism and carried it along via copy and paste.

#9 Esys   Members   -  Reputation: 156

Posted 28 April 2009 - 10:00 AM

It's starting to become apparent that the theories we have about the nature of the universe are taking a turn towards the "weird". Is that because the universe is, in itself, "weird"? Or is it a case of us seeing more than what is really there because of our inability to comprehend the universe.

It's akin to my "Square Peg-Round Hole" theory...a big enough round hole and a square peg will fit. Make the hole too small and the square peg won't fit. Oh noes! Now we have to form 2 theories: the Macro Round Hole and the Micro Round Hole..and if you don't look, you won't see me shaving the corners off the square peg to make it fit the smaller round hole.

#10 LessBread   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1411

Posted 28 April 2009 - 12:03 PM

Keep in mind that this "weirdness" takes place at the subatomic level where the items measured are smaller than wavelengths of light [1]. That makes "seeing" them extremely difficult. I think our ability to comprehend the universe is not in doubt. I think it's more the case that nature does not behave at these scales the way it does at scales that we can easily perceive with our eyes. We tend to say that things that behave in ways that don't match our expectations are weird.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS