Continuing Attempts to Reconcile Quantum Theory With Macro-Reality

[xSilverPhinx]

The article reminds us that questions remain about the basis of reality and perceived reality. That common sense assertions regarding the "realness" of any given phenomenon may not be supportable in light of quantum mechanics.

I will also note that "quantum mechanics" is by no means an unambiguous reference point. There are multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, some of which call into question the idea that there is an unequivocal perspective on what constitutes reality. (See "On Participatory Realism" | Information and Interaction.)

There might as well be many levels of reality -- quantum, meso (where we live) and macro -- and they may of not interact. I don't know, but perhaps there is no one reality to encompass all three of these levels at the same time without taking into account the observer in the middle (meso level). Maybe we're all living in a probabilistic simulation and that's the 'objective reality' we have to contend with...  

[Randy]

Well, I hate this simulation. Someone needs to reboot the computer and rerun it.

[Recusant]

The many worlds interpretation has given rise to a similar lament: This timeline sucks. 

[Tank]

I agree that our perception of sound and colour occurs in the brain.  However, both phenomenon have physical existence and our perception of them in no way effects that physical reality.

Nevertheless I also accept that the method of our perception does have an affect on what we perceive.  For example with sound there are a few artefacts of our system that I find quite interesting.  In electronics you will find that if you have a non-linear system and feed two separate frequencies into it, you get what is known a "mixing". So if you, say, feed in a 5 KHz tone and a 2 KHz tone you will get 2, 3, 5 and 7 KHz out of the system (ie both input frequencies and also their sum and difference).  The extra frequencies are also known as beat frequencies.  So what does this have to do with hearing? Well lets say you're listening to a barbershop quartet.  When they sing in close four part harmony and they get the chord exactly right you may hear a fifth or even a sixth part.  This is because the ear is not a linear system and the mixing of the various parts of the four part chord cause additional voices to be heard, that are not actually there.  BTW I can verify that this is thrilling when you are singing, and this is called "ringing the chord" and it feels fantastic.

So I guess with hearing we could say that some parts of what we hear are separate from the physical phenomenon, but that phenomenon still exists in own right as well.

So pressure waves physically exist. Sound exists in the brain/mind of the organism perceiving the pressure waves.

[Recusant]

Another proposed experiment: This one would attempt to determine whether a spatial superposition state can apply to a macro scale object. Second story in which felines appear this evening. 

"Could Schrödinger's cat exist in real life? Our research may soon provide the answer" | The Conversation

Have you ever been in more than one place at the same time? If you're much bigger than an atom, the answer will be no.

But atoms and particles are governed by the rules of quantum mechanics, in which several different possible situations can coexist at once.

Quantum systems are ruled by what's called a "wave function": a mathematical object that describes the probabilities of these different possible situations.

And these different possibilities can coexist in the wave function as what is called a "superposition" of different states. For example, a particle existing in several different places at once is what we call "spatial superposition".

It's only when a measurement is carried out that the wave function "collapses" and the system ends up in one definite state.

Generally, quantum mechanics applies to the tiny world of atoms and particles. The jury is still out on what it means for large-scale objects.

In our research, published today in Optica, we propose an experiment that may resolve this thorny question once and for all.

[. . .]

The experiment we propose is challenging. It's not the kind of thing you can casually set up on a Sunday afternoon. It may take years of development, millions of dollars and a whole bunch of skilled experimental physicists.

Nonetheless, it could answer one of the most fascinating questions about our reality: is everything quantum? And so, we certainly think it's worth the effort.

[Link to full article.]