This could almost be in the Philosophy board. If not for the fact that an actual experiment is described, it might as well be, as with any discussions of quantum theory on a lay level. It's no spoiler to say that the article describes inconclusive investigations. If it were otherwise, that would be real news.
The condensed version of the idea here is that reality (physical events) we observe are as relative as other observations we make of the universe (time, for instance, per special relativity). That version is undoubtedly incorrect in any number of ways, but it's what I got out of the article.
"A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question" |
The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/a-new-quantum-paradox-throws-the-foundations-of-observed-reality-into-question-144426)
QuoteIf a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Perhaps not, some say.
And if someone is there to hear it? If you think that means it obviously did make a sound, you might need to revise that opinion.
We have found a new paradox in quantum mechanics – one of our two most fundamental scientific theories, together with Einstein's theory of relativity – that throws doubt on some common-sense ideas about physical reality.
Quantum mechanics vs common sense
Take a look at these three statements:
When someone observes an event happening, it really happened.
It is possible to make free choices, or at least, statistically random choices.
A choice made in one place can't instantly affect a distant event. (Physicists call this "locality".)
These are all intuitive ideas, and widely believed even by physicists. But our research, published in Nature Physics (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0990-x), shows they cannot all be true – or quantum mechanics itself must break down at some level.
[Continues . . . (https://theconversation.com/a-new-quantum-paradox-throws-the-foundations-of-observed-reality-into-question-144426)]
The paper is behind a paywall, but the abstract is available at the link in the final paragraph quoted above.
Recusant, as usual, you have posted something very interesting. In my day we were taught the Bohr or Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but I never felt comfortable with the idea of an observer collapsing the wave function. Later, I found Everett's many-world interpretation more acceptable — I know I'm in good company, since Sean Carroll seems to prefer it as well. Perhaps, disconcerting as it may be, superdeterminism is the ultimate answer! Now, in my more advanced years, I just try to keep up with the latest ideas in physics, while most of my time is spent pursuing my non-scientific interests.
I don't think it is any revelation to say that our current understanding is incomplete. I look forward to the next great revolution in physics. Like the way that relativity showed that Newtonian mechanics was effectively a special case of the new expanded reality (relativity), and that it was sufficient for most conmen purposes, I suspect that whatever comes next will do the same thing for relativity and QM. We live in exciting times for physics wonks!
As I understand it. If a tree falls in the forest it must make a sound. The problem I see is, People think that 'people' are the center of the universe when they're/we aren't. We evolved over time because of the what environment around us contained. We have ears because there was sound-- before we had ears, if not, no ears. Just as a cave fish has no eyes because there is no light in it's environment. No light, no eyes, so the light had to be present first---and because the sun was before there was fish. A sound recording can be made that detects sound when no one is present, but can be heard on the recording, something must have happened for there to be a recorded sound. The universe has no need for us. But, we have a need for the universe. :)
Eh. If a tree falls in the forest, a sound is made. It doesn't matter whether "anyone"- whatever kind of animal, or none, heard it or not. The physical release of sonic energy is real. Anything else is sophistry.
I think this is relevant.
If a tree falls in a forest it will make pressure waves in the air. But if there is no ear to translate those pressure waves into electro neurological impulses that are perceived has there been a sound? If sound is considered to be an interpretation of physical reality then with no ear to hear it there is no sound, just pressure waves with the potential to be considered sound.
I agree with Tanks analysis.
Human ears mysteriously and blessedly translate pressure waves into what we perceive as sound... or brain stimulation (are you there Silver?) . I say blessedly because if we could not translate those pressure waves into what we perceive as sound, then we could not enjoy Brahms, Ema Sumac, or Ella Fitzgerald.
Quote from: Icarus on September 16, 2020, 03:52:16 AM
I agree with Tanks analysis.
Human ears mysteriously and blessedly translate pressure waves into what we perceive as sound... or brain stimulation (are you there Silver?) . I say blessedly because if we could not translate those pressure waves into what we perceive as sound, then we could not enjoy Brahms, Ema Sumac, or Ella Fitzgerald.
Actually I disagree. Ears in no way change the physical phenomenon they have evolved to detect. Whether there is an ear to "hear" it or not the sound waves are still there and having an ear to listen changes nothing.
Quote from: Bluenose on September 16, 2020, 05:06:06 AM
Quote from: Icarus on September 16, 2020, 03:52:16 AM
I agree with Tanks analysis.
Human ears mysteriously and blessedly translate pressure waves into what we perceive as sound... or brain stimulation (are you there Silver?) . I say blessedly because if we could not translate those pressure waves into what we perceive as sound, then we could not enjoy Brahms, Ema Sumac, or Ella Fitzgerald.
Actually I disagree. Ears in no way change the physical phenomenon they have evolved to detect. Whether there is an ear to "hear" it or not the sound waves are still there and having an ear to listen changes nothing.
That was my opinion for years. However 'sound' is a particular/singular interpretation of the pressure waves that is only possible if an ear detects the pressure waves. Pressure waves are the general condition. Sound is a specific condition.
I agree with Tank and Icarus, and for the sake of argument I will limit the the definition of 'sound' to that consciously interpreted by the brain, and 'pressure waves' as the mechanical force that exists in the world outside the brain. You may not agree with my definitions and that's ok, but I think there is reason to specify which is which in this case. ;D
WARNING: Nerdgasm ahead!
In the cochlea of the inner ears, pressure waves get translated into electrical frequencies which are then interpreted in the brain as sounds. The cilia, which are groups of eyelash-like cells on a membrane inside the cochlea move according to the movement of the endolymph, or liquid, they are bathed in. Depending on where they are in the cochlea they will move to different frequencies of pressure waves. When these cells change position they open ion channels with allow ions to pass through and activate nerve cells attached to them. These nerve cells then fire at supposedly the frequencies in which the cilia move and that impulse goes to the brain where it will be interpreted in a chain of events in different sound-processing areas and association areas.
It is believed that the frequencies in which neurons fire are the 'language' of the brain in the central nervous system (there is more evidence to suggest this is the case in the peripheral nervous system). If nervous cells 'talk' to each other in different frequencies, then why wouldn't that be an important part of consciousness?
Nerdgasm ended.
I think it's not unlike what happens to perception of colour: different frequencies of visible light exist in the outside world, but could you call them different colours without taking into account a brain to subjectively interpret them?
This is an interesting topic by the way. :grin: :love:
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 16, 2020, 02:05:45 PM
I agree with Tank and Icarus, and for the sake of argument I will limit the the definition of 'sound' to that consciously interpreted by the brain, and 'pressure waves' as the mechanical force that exists in the world outside the brain. You may not agree with my definitions and that's ok, but I think there is reason to specify which is which in this case. ;D
WARNING: Nerdgasm ahead!
In the cochlea of the inner ears, pressure waves get translated into electrical frequencies which are then interpreted in the brain as sounds. The cilia, which are groups of eyelash-like cells on a membrane inside the cochlea move according to the movement of the endolymph, or liquid, they are bathed in. Depending on where they are in the cochlea they will move to different frequencies of pressure waves. When these cells change position they open ion channels with allow ions to pass through and activate nerve cells attached to them. These nerve cells then fire at supposedly the frequencies in which the cilia move and that impulse goes to the brain where it will be interpreted in a chain of events in different sound-processing areas and association areas.
It is believed that the frequencies in which neurons fire are the 'language' of the brain in the central nervous system (there is more evidence to suggest this is the case in the peripheral nervous system). If nervous cells 'talk' to each other in different frequencies, then why wouldn't that be an important part of consciousness?
Nerdgasm ended.
I think it's not unlike what happens to perception of colour: different frequencies of visible light exist in the outside world, but could you call them different colours without taking into account a brain to subjectively interpret them?
This is an interesting topic by the way. :grin: :love:
I couldn't have said it better myself. This is as much a language issue as a physical one. :)
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.
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 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311568706_On_Participatory_Realism).)
Quote from: Bluenose on September 21, 2020, 02:21:58 PM
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.
We are in agreement on that. ;D I'm just feeling particularly nit-picky when it comes to definitions in this case and arguing that it makes more sense to put a barrier between what happens outside and inside the brain -- there's a lot of interpretation and construction of perception going on at all times inside our skulls.
For instance, take synesthesia:
QuoteOf considerable relevance to this philosophical conundrum is a new observation that we made on a grapheme–colour synaesthete (Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001a). This subject was colour anomalous (s-cone deficiency leading to a difficulty discriminating purples and blues) but intriguingly, he claimed to see numbers in colours that he could never see in the real world ('Martian colours'). This is yet another piece of evidence against the memory hypothesis — for how can you remember something you have never seen? On the other hand, the cross-wiring hypothesis explains it neatly. If we assume that the colour processing machinery in V4 in the fusiform is largely innate, then the genetically based cross-activation of cells in this area would evoke colour phosphenes even though the colours cannot be seen in the real world because of retinal cone deficiencies. Indeed, even synaesthetes who are not colour blind sometimes say that the synaesthetically induced colours are somehow 'weird' or 'alien' and don't look quite the same as normal 'real world' colours. [...]
(Source: http://chip.ucsd.edu/pdf/Synaesthesia%20-%20JCS.pdf (http://chip.ucsd.edu/pdf/Synaesthesia%20-%20JCS.pdf))
QuoteNevertheless 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.
That's cool! I didn't know that. :grin:
QuoteSo 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.
In non-pathological cases, agreed. ;D
Quote from: Recusant on September 21, 2020, 09:09:07 PM
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 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311568706_On_Participatory_Realism).)
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... :shrug:
Well, I hate this simulation. Someone needs to reboot the computer and rerun it.
The many worlds interpretation has given rise to a similar lament: This timeline sucks. :sadnod:
Quote from: Bluenose on September 21, 2020, 02:21:58 PM
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.
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. :felix:
"Could Schrödinger's cat exist in real life? Our research may soon provide the answer" |
The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/could-schrodingers-cat-exist-in-real-life-our-research-may-soon-provide-the-answer-147752)
QuoteHave 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 (https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/fulltext.cfm?uri=optica-7-10-1427&id=441092), 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. (https://theconversation.com/could-schrodingers-cat-exist-in-real-life-our-research-may-soon-provide-the-answer-147752)]