Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Physics Parts Ways With Reality
aeoneal sends us to PhysicsWeb for news guaranteed to induce headache in those wedded to the reality of, well, reality. Researchers from the University of Vienna have shown the violation of a stronger form of Bell's inequality known as Leggett's inequality. The result means that we must not only give up Einstein's hope of "no spooky action at a distance," we must also give up (some of) the idea that the world exists when we are not looking. From the article: "[Studies] have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption — realism, locality, or both — is discordant with quantum mechanics." From the Nature abstract: "Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned." Only subscribers to Nature, alas, can know what features those are, as PhysicsWeb doesn't tell us.
you can find here http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529.
Humans don't have anything special to do with "observing" ("collapse of the wavefunction" or "state reduction"). A particle can be "observed" by a rock, or by any other "classical" macroscopic system with which it can entangle. Quantum decoherence in the consistent histories interpretation, IMHO, comes closest to explaining this process.
Nope, and a lot of physicists think that quantum mechanics is fundamentally broken beyond the level of fixing - though it is a massively useful theory from a calculational point of view, it has deeper problems than just the ones involved in this experiment, including the measurement problem.
Nobody is really sure what quantum physics says about reality or locality. Each of the interpretations is flawed or incomplete in some way. You might be interested to read about David Bohm's interesting theory - though a lot of people think it's garbage, it does illuminate the lengths you must go to to fashion a theory that is consistent with quantum mechanics yet doesn't completely shred your common sense notions of reality. I have no idea if the experiment in this article has anything to say about so-called "Bohmian mechanics," as the blurb was completely uninformative and I don't subscribe to Nature...
It has already been stated several times, but as it is kind of being drowned out by the noise, I will add my voice to the chorus:
Waveform collapse is not relative to the observer!
It might seem like it should be, because it is slightly more intuitive that way, but it is not. This is very important.
Your explanation is entirely incorrect, and you're kind of doing a disservice to those who read it an think they now understand QM a bit more, when in fact you have just led them further astray.