Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, March 13, 2019

A new quantum physics experiment just lent evidence to a mind-boggling idea that was previously limited to the realm of theory, according to the MIT Technology Review -- that under the right conditions, two people can observe the same event, see two different things happen, and both be correct.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Grrr.... stupid youtube. Link below:

Here's the 4 min link that skins Schrodinger's Cat for you easily and understandably.

www.youtube.com

Here's the brief history of the original thought experiment that has now been verified multiple times, plus a quick debunking of materialism.

www.youtube.com

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-13 12:29 AM | Reply

"the sort of brain-melting ideas that wow physics undergrads"

In other words, BS. It's unfortunate that this sort of nonsensical, literal interpretation of thought experiments drives many intelligent people away from the field.

Reality is not the same thing as measured or perceived reality, especially when being measured from a great distance or difference in scale. That's common sense that any true scientist would know.

#2 | Posted by Sentinel at 2019-03-13 01:04 AM | Reply

"the sort of brain-melting ideas that wow physics undergrads"

In other words, BS. It's unfortunate that this sort of nonsensical, literal interpretation of thought experiments drives many intelligent people away from the field.

Reality is not the same thing as measured or perceived reality, especially when being measured from a great distance or difference in scale. That's common sense that any true scientist would know.

#3 | Posted by Sentinel at 2019-03-13 01:04 AM | Reply

I figured that out watching coverage of the Covington Catholic kids.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-03-13 08:03 AM | Reply

- measured from a great distance or difference in scale.

As per the link to the brief history of the original thought experiment, it has been measured in every way imaginable.

The link to this new experiment covered by MIT Technology Review, which comes to the same conclusions as every other experiment on various aspects of the thought experiment, requires free registration of sorts, which is why I didn't link it, but the link is in the thread article... and here:

www.technologyreview.com

Dismissing these multiple conclusions out of hand as "BS" is highly unscientific, lmao.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-13 04:59 PM | Reply

In related quantum physics news:

"Physicists reverse time using quantum computer

Researchers from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology teamed up with colleagues from the U.S. and Switzerland and returned the state of a quantum computer a fraction of a second into the past. They also calculated the probability that an electron in empty interstellar space will spontaneously travel back into its recent past. The study is published in Scientific Reports."

Read more at: phys.org

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-13 06:36 PM | Reply

Sigh...

The bogus "interpretations" of quantum mechanics

Peddling garbage interpretations of QM is symptomatic of the same delusions that lead people to believe in "alternative facts" and Trumpism.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-13 06:36 PM | Reply

1st years..late at night..Very profound..(so glad my parents bribed admissions so I could be here with other rich slackers and smoke good dope while I network with the privileged offspring of other cheats)..

#8 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-03-13 06:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

So when trump says NO COLLUSION, or "I never paid stormy daniels", he's not lying, he's just referring to quantum physics.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-13 07:02 PM | Reply

that under the right conditions, two people can observe the same event, see two different things happen, and both be correct.

Fake news.

#10 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-03-13 07:03 PM | Reply

#7

MIT et al for decades now or the non-physicist gamer you linked to?

Uh-huh. Someone is being unreasonably defensive for some reason.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-13 08:29 PM | Reply

#11 - that was an unimpressive link to post in a silly attempt to discredit this article. Dinechin isn't a gamer, though. He's a recognized contributor to Linux development at Red Hat. He has absolutely no bona fides when it comes to Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory, though. The best part is 'alternatic facts' part. Oh dear.

#12 | Posted by YAV at 2019-03-13 08:58 PM | Reply

In other words, agreed, Corky.

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2019-03-13 08:59 PM | Reply

"two people can observe the same event, see two different things happen"

We're a bag of chemicals, anything is possible. Even bad people are really the result of their chemical makeup. I realize this is simplistic but, on some levels like with dictators, I think it is truth. I don't know exactly which chemical is too present in their brains but I suspect that biochemists have a pretty good idea. "Biochemists for Trump"....not happening.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-03-13 09:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We're a bag of chemicals, anything is possible. Even bad people are really the result of their chemical makeup. I realize this is simplistic but, on some levels like with dictators, I think it is truth. I don't know exactly which chemical is too present in their brains but I suspect that biochemists have a pretty good idea. "Biochemists for Trump"....not happening.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-03-13 09:38 PM | REPLY

Oh how correct you are LMFAO. I pick up MY bag of chemicals monthly. I call it my girly bag.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-03-13 09:42 PM | Reply

I have had a few glasses of wine and a little bourbon, so there's that.

We (humans) will never quantify the truth. We can only attempt to envelope the truth within a given distribution of possible truths. And then there is choosing the right distribution.

#16 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-03-13 09:49 PM | Reply

The wave particle duality of light, confirmed by experiment, lets us maintain some predictability within an otherwise incomplete understanding of nature. Relativity already tells us every observer has a different perspective. Its remarkable that physicists continue to find ways to emulate thought experiments in real world experiments which meld with theory. It will need to be duplicated.

Meanwhile, Trump is setting science and honesty irrevocably backwards. Without fanfare, Huawei has taken a leading role in shaping 5G technology on a global scale. Like China, Huawei cannot be contained. Meanwhile, we're stuck with Trump who is slashing science and every social safety net he can get his hands on. The bigger question underlying the Battle with Huawei is will it become the end of US credibility and domination?

#17 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-13 10:24 PM | Reply

One of the people who've been proven most accurate in their theories of this apparently now basic fundamental aspect of quantum physics is this guy....

"Werner Heisenberg, among others, interpreted the mathematics to mean that reality doesn't exist until observed.

"The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ... is impossible," he wrote.

John Wheeler, too, used a variant of the double-slit experiment to argue that "no elementary quantum phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (‘observed,' ‘indelibly recorded') phenomenon."

Last May, Henry Stapp and colleagues argued, in this forum, that the double-slit experiment and its modern variants provide evidence that "a conscious observer may be indispensable" to make sense of the quantum realm and that a transpersonal mind underlies the material world."

blogs.scientificamerican.com

That article goes on to give caveats to the above understanding.... which this new experiment appears to knock down.

What Stapp argues is what physicist Michio Kaku concludes at the end of the brief link at #1.... that the material particles of which we and our physical world are made appear not to exist unless there is an observer, and even then, two observers might see different things.

And the "transpersonal mind" Stapp mentions is where physics and psychology seem to meet, again, apparently in some cosmic fashion.... that is, it seems we would not exist without this interaction.

Possible Role of Quantum Physics in Transpersonal & Metaphysical Psychology

www.researchgate.net

pls note:

The quotes about "a variant of the double-slit experiment" has absolutely nothing to do with the showering habits of A. Mackris and the Artist Formerly Known as Bill O'Reilly. Just want to make that clear.

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-13 11:35 PM | Reply

Pilot wave theory explains everything quantum mechanics does with much less math, and it actually makes sense. Their is an underlying reality. Wigner's Friend proves that. Gödel proved that.

#19 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-03-14 12:40 AM | Reply

Mathematics is a predictive tool of tremendous value. But it is mankind's model of reality, incomplete or approximate in many cases. The position of an electron or any other property of a fundamental particles varies with time and can be determined only partially by observation. The quantum world model is not consistent with our everyday experiences or useful in conducting our daily lives.

But, the philosophical question of whether there is a reality on the scale we are accustomed to or any quantum scale is entirely separate from the results of these experiments or mathematical models.

#20 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-14 01:05 AM | Reply

#20 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-14 01:05 AM

"entirely separate"

No, it's not.

#21 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-03-14 01:16 AM | Reply

Metaphysics is not a branch of physics, and mixing it together with hard sciences is akin to teaching creationism alongside evolution. I oppose both.

#22 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-14 10:35 AM | Reply

Got into a fight with my buddy in high-school over whether light is a particle or wave. I haven't spoken to him since. Though I have come around to see that he made a valid argument from his perspective.

#23 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-14 11:22 AM | Reply

"We're a bag of chemicals, anything is possible."

I learned that my first month in college after I went to my first open. I was a late bloomer. After the first puff of weed I sat down on a pumpkin and had an early October vision where I was Flash Gordon flying a rocket-cycle towards Mongo (three years before TED was even released) and then I realized that I was here on this planet to do one thing-- save the Universe. The problem I soon encountered was the simple fact that everyone ELSE on Earth was ALSO here to save the universe, and some people's idea of saving the universe was far different than my idea.

So the chemicals do not help save the universe, they only help you deal with the horrible gnawing pain upon realizing that, although were are all here to save the universe, it is indelibly written that we'll NEVER save the universe, no matter how long or how hard we try.

#24 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-03-14 11:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Metaphysics is not a branch of physics"

Of course not. Its a branch of philosophy. But metaphysics does touch upon and overlap the peripherals of quantum physics.

#25 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-03-14 11:39 AM | Reply

- Pilot wave theory explains

Not so much, as it turns out....

"October 11, 2018

Famous Experiment Dooms Alternative to Quantum Weirdness

Oil droplets guided by "pilot waves" have failed to reproduce the results of the quantum double-slit experiment, crushing a century-old dream that there exists a single, concrete reality."

www.quantamagazine.org

- Metaphysics

Not a part of the large and varied amount of experimentation done on this question in QM... possibly a part of the explanation of the results.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-14 01:22 PM | Reply

Kind of reminds me of the Hindu vision that all that exists originates as god having a dream of god having a dream of god having a dream... ad infinitum

Not saying there is or isn't a god... its just the word god is there to define a first causality of creation...

#27 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2019-03-14 03:01 PM | Reply

"possibly a part of the explanation of the results."

The 'explanation' / interpretation and headline of this article is pure metaphysics.

#28 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-14 03:07 PM | Reply

" The best part is 'alternatic facts' part. Oh dear."

You're absolutely right. Portraying two irreconcible relaties as existing simulateously is nothing at all like alternative facts.

Except of course, you're absolutely wrong. That's exactly what 'alternative facts' are. The article actually did a good job of explaining in layman's terms the difference between probabilities and realities.

One of these statements is true.

#29 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-14 03:22 PM | Reply

- pure metaphysics.

You should send a letter to MIT, and all the other involved physicists over the last 1/2 century and more, about your concerns for them following the science where it leads them.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-14 04:23 PM | Reply

it is indelibly written that we'll NEVER save the universe, no matter how long or how hard we try.

#24 | Posted by NerfHerder

How on Earth (or Where/Whenever) can we possibly "save the Universe" (whatever that means). WE cannot save ourselves.

And I don't see how the Universe needs "saving" anyway.

IT seems to be doing just fine.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-14 05:39 PM | Reply

The 'explanation' / interpretation and headline of this article is pure metaphysics.

#28 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Got to love how so many of us think we can "understand" reality while staying in denial of it.

And look at all the multisyllabic words! They must mean something!!

We don't understand our own Consciousness. We don't even know what 96% of the Universe is even though it is all around you and IN you but we somehow just KNOW how this 4% we can see works.

The article is right on track. I appreciate your finds Corky. You are a Thinker! So you must exist at Least!

Our new understandings of Time and Space (most of which has been uncovered in the last couple of decades) make for some interesting "paradoxes". If you are open enough to accept the knowledge of it. For example it is impossible to live in anyone else's time zone (or space of course). Everyone lives in slightly different times as well as space. What you see and "experience" has already happened before it gets to you. There is only one place apparently that YOU can experience the Now, the Present. Deep in the "core" of your Consciousness. Only deep meditation can get you "there". It is "place" where there is Nothing because thoughts take Time because if the mechanics of the brain. Thoughts have to move thru space and time.

Meditation allows the Consciousness to experience pure awareness (much like our awareness at birth) without words so that a thought does not have to form and travel any distance (which would take it from the Here and Now)

Too deep?

Perhaps you shouldn't think about it.

The Universe that you recreate inside your consciousness (where is that exactly ?) is only an approximation of what IS so it is easy to see right there how two observers can see two different realities. Add to all this quantum effects such as the observer affect "particle vs wave travel" and spooky action at distance and you can intuitively "see" that the Universe is not what we have thought it was. It is way "weirder".

Ignore theories like String Theory and multiverse theory and the unknown "96%" of Everything at your own spiritual peril.

#32 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-03-14 11:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You should send a letter to MIT, and all the other involved physicists over the last 1/2 century and more, about your concerns for them following the science where it leads them."

I've actually talked to some of them in person. Have you? Most of them will tell you the actual science they followed is different from the junk science you linked to.

#33 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-15 12:09 AM | Reply

>>Dismissing these multiple conclusions >>out of hand as "BS" is highly >> unscientific, lmao.

Actually its very scientific.. the scientific method only works if certain assumptions are made. One of those is the consistency principle .. that is what's true yesterday is also true today . Additionally, you also need a shared objective reality.. without that how could we take the conclusions of any person that's not us..imagine a computer-generated Maze that's different for each person.. directions from one person to the next would be meaningless; so just because Einstein discovered that E equals MC squared, that was only true for his corn maze not yours..

There could be many reasons why the observations are different we don't know enough about quantum mechanics but we can't saw off the science branch were sitting on with science.

#34 | Posted by Regnum at 2019-03-15 07:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- (where is that exactly ?)

Also possibly in the quantum realm.

www.sciencedaily.com

bigthink.com

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-15 09:12 AM | Reply

The quotes about "a variant of the double-slit experiment" has absolutely nothing to do with the showering habits of A. Mackris and the Artist Formerly Known as Bill O'Reilly. Just want to make that clear.

#18 | Posted by Corky

Shameless trolling (TM). That's all this clown has.

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-15 09:29 AM | Reply

"The Universe that you recreate inside your consciousness is only an approximation of what IS"

Of course, that's exactly what I've been saying. That's a far cry from saying there is no objective reality.

#37 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-15 10:13 AM | Reply

#36

Actually, I have an interesting science thread, some relevant article links, some on-topic comments, none of which you have, and, obviously, a better sense of humor than you.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-15 10:26 AM | Reply

- saying there is no objective reality.

You may mean multiple experiments by different groups of physicists over a long period of time indicating, time after time... with other competing theories "crushed"... that there is no objective reality.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-15 11:00 AM | Reply

No.

#40 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-15 01:24 PM | Reply

#40

See? That's very subjective.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-15 02:46 PM | Reply

Jesus H Christ,

Thanks to Einstein we've known EVERYTHING is relative, depending on the observer's vantage point. And yes there is a objective reality, except our understanding is incomplete. This should give Corky great comfort, since it still leaves room for God, even though God is unnecessary to all legitimate explanations. As Morrison made clear not so long ago, "you cannot petition the Lord with prayer".

#42 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-15 03:07 PM | Reply

- there is a objective reality, except our understanding is incomplete

More subjectivity. You may hope that's the case, but, so far, with much experimentation, that does not appear to be the case.

"Einstein vs quantum mechanics, and why he'd be a convert today"

phys.org

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-15 03:18 PM | Reply

LOL. Corky posts an "Einstein was wrong!" article which says right in the text it's talking about the philosophy of quantum mechanics, not the science of it. It contains a patently false statement about what Heisenberg's equations proved.

"Be a convert" LOL

#44 | Posted by Sentinel at 2019-03-15 04:06 PM | Reply

If you don't grok the full article at phys.org, you shouldn't be ashamed, it's not easy.

But here, let me help:

"At the time, most quantum physicists adopted the "shut up and calculate" philosophy: get on with the job, and don't worry about philosophical issues – just get the predictions."

The word philosophy is used in the first few paragraphs about the attitude physicists adopted, and their goal not to worry about philosophy, but to focus on the science and the experiments.... which is what they have done for many decades now, including this most recent experiment that leads them to the same place all the others did.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-15 04:47 PM | Reply

"and don't worry about philosophical issues"

In other words, metaphysics. Which is what the article is talking about.

#46 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-15 04:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

As was said, you didn't understand the article, which is about the evolving understanding of the science of QM.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2019-03-16 11:54 AM | Reply

Just keep telling yourself that, preacher Corky. Those of us with actual science backgrounds and scientific minds will continue to laugh at this junk pop science.

#48 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-03-16 01:56 PM | Reply

Quantum woo is the justification of irrational beliefs by an obfuscatory reference to quantum physics. Buzzwords like "energy field", "probability wave", or "wave-particle duality" are used to magically turn thoughts into something tangible in order to directly affect the universe. This results in such foolishness as the Law of Attraction or quantum healing. Some have turned quantum woo into a career, such as Deepak Chopra, who often presents ill-defined concepts of quantum physics as proof for God and other magical thinking.

When an idea seems too crazy to believe, the proponent often makes an appeal to quantum physics as the explanation. This is a New Age version of God of the gaps.

rationalwiki.org

#49 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-16 01:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort