Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
39 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric, vimesey (6 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,903 Year: 1,651/23,288 Month: 1,651/1,851 Week: 291/484 Day: 67/42 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have quantum interpretations been experimentally verified?
Percy
Member
Posts: 19330
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 1 of 62 (785459)
06-05-2016 9:59 AM


"New evidence could break the standard view of quantum mechanics," says a headline at Science Alert. I wasn't sure what to think, so I began the thread, Article About New Developments in Quantum Mechanics. There were good responses, and Son Goku said that possibly there was something worth discussing, hence this thread proposal.

Son Goku explained that both the standard and Bohmian versions of quantum mechanics yield the same experimental results regarding quantum uncertainty (as phrased in the article, "particles don't have a location until they're observed"), and that the only way to distinguish between the two was to observe the trajectories suggested by the Bohmian model. The experiment described in the article suggests that such trajectories may have been observed, with the emphasis on "may." Son Goku questions how much weight should be given the experiment's use of "weak measurements," and the article echoes this when it says:

quote:
So let's step back for a second here and break this down. First thing's first, this is just one study, and A LOT more replication and verification would be needed before the standard view comes crumbling down. So don't go burning any text books just yet, okay? Good.

Particle trajectories seems to me an incredibly obscure subject of discussion, but as the article describes the implications are dramatic, for if the Bohmian model is correct it means that particles *do* have precise locations. Success of the Bohmian model would also mean that nonlocality is true, meaning that everything in the universe is always affected by everything else in the universe, no matter how far apart, which would have implications for our interpretation of what Einstein called, "spooky action at a distance," what we observe as quantum entanglement.

According to the article the Bohmiam view fell into disfavor when a 1992 study found that it required outlandish particle trajectories, but this new study suggests that because of nonlocality the information about trajectories is not reliable.

The article doesn't describe the actual experimental results. The paper itself, Experimental nonlocal and surreal Bohmian trajectories, is a bit above my pay grade. I'd like to see someone more qualified tackle it first, but I'll wade in on my own if necessary.

Usually threads about quantum mechanics go in Big Bang and Cosmology.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19330
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 8 of 62 (793235)
10-24-2016 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AlexCaledin
10-24-2016 8:42 AM


AlexCaledin writes:

Dr. Henry Stapp's writings are extremely interesting. He seems to prove, analyzing the brain research, that the quantum choice is coming "from nowhere", from some transcendent "world of mind". So, according to his worldview, the Physical Reality is no more than "structure of tendencies/probabilities within the world of mind".

So as a receiver enters the end zone while the football descends into his outstretched hands before 70,000 onlookers, what is going on in all their worlds of mind? Is there a negotiation? Is there a branching of realities into "touchdown," "incompletion, "under review," and all possibilities in between? Something else?

To me such ideas seem the kind of typical anthropocentric claptrap we humans are so prone to, as if nothing ever happened (no wave functions collapsed) until we humans developed consciousness.

This thread's actually about whether particles *do* have precise locations. At the time I proposed this thread I was all primed, locked and loaded to discuss the topic, but I can't maintain readiness for months on topics that are at the limits of my understanding, even on a good day. I'd have to reread everything before I could be ready to discuss and misunderstand this topic again, and if anyone is interested then I'll do that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AlexCaledin, posted 10-24-2016 8:42 AM AlexCaledin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Son Goku, posted 10-26-2016 7:25 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020