Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) (livescience.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the Schrodinger's-cat(s) dept.

Zorro (Slashdot reader #15,797) quotes Live Science: Can two versions of reality exist at the same time? Physicists say they can -- at the quantum level, that is.

Researchers recently conducted experiments to answer a decades-old theoretical physics question about dueling realities. This tricky thought experiment proposed that two individuals observing the same photon could arrive at different conclusions about that photon's state -- and yet both of their observations would be correct.

For the first time, scientists have replicated conditions described in the thought experiment. Their results, published Feb. 13 in the preprint journal arXiv, confirmed that even when observers described different states in the same photon, the two conflicting realities could both be true. "You can verify both of them," study co-author Martin Ringbauer, a postdoctoral researcher with the Department of Experimental Physics at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, told Live Science.

114 comments

  1. that explains politcs! by kiviQr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...we knew it for long time

    1. Re:that explains politcs! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      It's fake news and very fake news at the same time!

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re: that explains politcs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. Anyway I'm hoping all the kooky things physicists say is because there is a lack of understanding in the theories.

    3. Re: that explains politcs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right. From TFA:

      "for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition"

      That's not a different reality, that's ignorance.

    4. Re: that explains politcs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?

      If somebody puts SchrÃdinger's cat in a box, is he going to respond with legal action?

    5. Re: that explains politcs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains alternate truth!

    6. Re: that explains politcs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Yes
      2. No

    7. Re:that explains politcs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there's a big difference between believing two mutually contradictory things at once, and superposition (not knowing which thing is true).

  2. Re: More than one reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which reality is actually safer?

  3. Duh!!!! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

    Every time I talk to my boss, I know there's more than one reality.

    1. Re:Duh!!!! by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Every time I talk to my boss, I know there's more than one reality.

      The Milton Effect: You are fired and working at the same time. The boss just hasn't told you yet.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re: Duh!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have a boss, clearly. Do you have any friends? Try talking to them. It will help

    3. Re:Duh!!!! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I am going with three inter related realities. One of normal space us, one of quantum space where matter is small enough to go faster than the speed of gravity and exist massless until such time as sufficient quantum particles come together to exhibit mass and slow below the speed of gravity. There third one, macro space, multiple universes, bound within a greater verse, one going much slower than us, much like we go much slower than quantum space. Us caught in between, normal space stretched between quantum space and macro space. The really weird bit, where macro space and quantum space meet, the other side of reality for us in normal space.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re: Duh!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh. You didn't watch Office Space.

  4. Quantum Physics Reminds Me of Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quantum physics reminds me of reality. For example, the dress is blue, but some people say it's gold. It's 2 colors at one time.

    Or in the basketball game last night, it clearly was a foul, or maybe it wasn't, both at the same time time.

    Or the football game I recorded, until I watch the game it was in a super position where either team could have one, but to those who already watched, the game has a winner. The game was in super position and decided both at the same time.

    Quantum physics appears to work exactly like the reality we know. And it means there is a deeper reality under that.

    1. Re:Quantum Physics Reminds Me of Reality by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Some people go two ways as well, at least that's what he said (@0:25): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Quantum Physics Reminds Me of Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum physics also works like the Korean war then.
      Both sides started it before the other
      Both sides won the war

  5. Not Necessarily by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3

    The paper indicates that one of three assumptions must be wrong with the other two being: free choice and non-locality. My bet is on the latter. However, one aspect of this particularly dense paper that I do not quite grasp yet is that it seems that the suggested experiment requires measuring the state of an entangled photon non-destructively which I understood to be impossible...but it is possible I misunderstood.

    1. Re: Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on a couple things, quite literally.

      The first thing is which model of quantum physics you accept. This is difficult for most people to choose because physicists like to write theoretical papers based on assumptions of a model, leading other to believe that said model has been established or evidence found for it.

      In fact, the model one should use in experiments where the results of the experiments are of interest, rather than some theoretical idea, is the standard model.

      You wouldn't buy a bag of sugar at the grocery store with sugar commodity markets or economics in mind. The store is literally selling a bag of sugar. Textbooks are unhelpful in everyday practical life where we live, despite the frantic desires of theoretical physicists.

      Secondly, theoretical observations have never been shown to have any impact on the standard model. Just because there is a piece of paper or headline that says entangled photons can be destroyed by observation doesn't mean a movie or a glass of wine will explode just because you watch the movie or sip the wine.

      And we wonder why physicists can't survive in the real world. Its probably why one becomes a physicist. Can't handle reality.

    2. Re: Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's both possible and impossible

    3. Re:Not Necessarily by Xylantiel · · Score: 2

      I think this is terribly mischaracterized even in the paper. They say that the assumption they think is violated is something like "there is an objective reality" and so the reality can be different for the two observers. But, as best I can tell, what they mean by an "objective" answer is that there is a hidden variable. We already knew that there are no hidden variables, so it's not surprising that this experiment also shows the assumption of a hidden variable must be violated. While this is a really nice realization of this thought experiment, I don't see how it adds anything new to our understanding of quantum mechanics, it just confirms what we already knew. I'm pretty sure that one of the things we already knew is that phrasing things in terms of "wave function collapse" is not a good way to think about it (easily leads to misleading conclusions). This is why the many-worlds interpretation already exists.

    4. Re: Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      luckily Iranian physicist don't have to deal with leftist politics. They've already figured this out.

      America is heading down the crapper, soon.

    5. Re: Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paper is a very convoluted way of asking "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?"

      To which the answer is an obvious and resounding "yes".

      Only people who believe we're in a simulation where reality is computed "just in time" for our senses would disagree. It makes no difference because if you believe the simulation theory, if you do anything that would allow you to observe something directly or indirectly, the simulation would not optimize it away so you would get observations. This line of research amounts to attempting to escape out of the simulation by finding exploitable flaws... And still wouldn't prove multiple realities any more than the millions of VMs in our data centers prove multiple realities.

    6. Re:Not Necessarily by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

      Actually, we don't know that there are no hidden variables. Quite the contrary, lots of hidden variable theories are still consistent with all known experiments. You've probably been misled by the nonsense that gets published every time someone tries to do a new test of Bell's inequality. Most of those articles are just as confused as this one. Remember that all those "experimental proofs" that the wavefunction is real, that measurements are random, that hidden variables don't exist, and so on are actually based on a long list of assumptions. Locality, no retrocausality, no contextuality, fair sampling, and so on. None of those assumptions are justified in any way, either from theory or experiment. And at least one of them (fair sampling) is patently absurd.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    7. Re:Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No retrocausality" is a big one. All the hidden-variable theories I've seen are either non-causal, or wrong (possibly both).

    8. Re:Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free choice is an illusion. Every possibility for every universe plays out in every way that they can. Each universe consists of countless, though finite, number of alternate realities. You live within the reality path designated for your particular version of you and everything has already unfolded, you just haven't caught up yet.

      Anyhow, the double slit test already proved what's being stated in the article. It's old knowledge.

    9. Re:Not Necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that we had only ruled out hidden-variable theories that also had locality (a cosmic speed limit, eg. c).

  6. No Intuition Here by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    I tried to read the paper but my brain melted about halfway through it.

    Can someone produce a lay explanation?

    1. Re:No Intuition Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I tried to read the paper but my brain melted about halfway through it.

      Can someone produce a lay explanation?

      Really small things are hard to measure, and even really smart people read WAY too far into the language used to describe really small things bumping into each other.

  7. Wigner's friend by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    For a little more clarity on the subject, this is a physical realization of the "Wigners Friend" experiment. The "state" referred to in the summary is "superposition/collapsed waveform", and not the specific information about the photon such as its spin.

    In the experiment, one scientist ("Wigner's friend") observes a photon in a superposition of states, which collapses the state, while a second scientist observes the first scientist. This uses entangled photons, so that observing the first photon collapses the state of the second.

    The first scientist observes one photon, thereby collapsing its state to reveal information. Does the second scientist see his photon in a superposition or collapsed state? The first scientist might even tell the 2nd that he has observed the photon, collapsing its state - but not sating what state information was seen.

    According to the experiment, the 2nd scientist still sees his photon in a superposition of states even though he knows that the first scientist has observed the photon and that the first scientist knows what the collapsed state is.

    1. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      None of which suggests what the article summary implies: parallel realities. Everything in your experiment involves two people interacting with one another in one shared space-time continuum.

      The whole "multiverse" thing annoys me because it is intrinsically non-falsifiable. It gets a lot of attention because a specific group of physicists who favor this model happen to be famous and popular. So people think this is a done deal. And it's not. Just as many, just as smart and just as prominent physicists do not accept this model.

      No, I won't give you links. You can find your own links if you actually care, which you don't.

    2. Re:Wigner's friend by burtosis · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's a bit clickbaity as the experimenters themselves say

      In contrast to standard Bell inequalities, (the probability distribution) is not concerned with the coexistence of local properties for two separate physical systems, but rather with the coexistence of facts with respect to different observers.

      Yet this apparent discrepancy in observed measurements, or "facts about the world being observer independent" has several loopholes including locality, freedom of choice, and the detection loophole (only a fraction of photons are successfully detected). The locality and freedom of choice loopholes can be removed by sufficiently seperating the events in space. Neither of these was able to be done in this experiment. Further you would need to ensure that the measurement of the observers "memory" (an observer could simply be an instrument, sensor, or interaction of matter/energy of some kind and not a person) and are clearly independent systems initially.

      Tl:dr this is less about showing multiple realities exist and more about showing how the "cut" between indeterminate quantum and deterministic classic macro systems work. A good discussion is here

    3. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't see that a photon is in a superposition of states, that is by definition, an unobserved photon. QM analogies... I swear physicists were trolling us when they came up with that stuff.

    4. Re:Wigner's friend by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Which is the expected result. It's just disturbing that it implies that Wigner's friend must also now be in superposition and entangled with the photon state.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    5. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superposition (parallel realities) is inherent to quantum theory.

    6. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What cut? The systems are purely quantum mechanical. There's no reason to assume that they'll magically become classical (whatever that means) just because they're large. In fact, the existance of chemical elements is very strong evidence that quantum mechanical effects don't just disappear on the macro scale.

    7. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can deduce it by measuring a non-commutating property. e.g. if you measure its position, you'll know that its momentum is in superposition.

    8. Re:Wigner's friend by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      The locality and freedom of choice loopholes can be removed by sufficiently seperating the events in space.

      How is that? If the locality assumption is wrong, that means by definition that separating them in space doesn't make any difference..

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    9. Re:Wigner's friend by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      This is the thing that has always puzzled me about quantum mechanics.
      What is an observer? Is a cat an observer? What about a measuring device that displays a value, but nobody reads it?

      Surely we can't be in a situation where everyone has an entirely different universe depending on who observed what.

      Can we?

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    10. Re:Wigner's friend by az-saguaro · · Score: 1

      And, if a photon falls in the Superposition Woods, does it make a sound?

    11. Re:Wigner's friend by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

      The measurement device is an observer. The key thing to note is that it takes a piece of information about something very small and propagates that information to a relatively large system, large enough to be human readable. There's no need to infer that there's anything special about being human or feline here.

    12. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely that just means learning which properties you don't know? Not a traditional binary true:false result but the absence of certainty. A reminder that you don't really know anything without observing it and 2nd party observations are a matter of trust, not truth.

    13. Re:Wigner's friend by Binestar · · Score: 1

      I care, but I'm not smart enough in particle physics to know what to search for. Would you give *me* links?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    14. Re:Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but also you won't know anything about something you have observed, as soon as you observe a non-commutating property.

    15. Re: Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parallel realities is an explanation to cover for the use of uncertain probabilities. It is unlikely to be true in practice. No experiment has shown it.

    16. Re: Wigner's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The superposition of multiple states is basic quantum theory. Calling them parallel realities isn't an explanation, because it's merely nomenclature. In practice, quantum theory has never been found to be wrong.

  8. Re: More than one reality by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Which reality is actually safer?

    The one that keeps him on the golf course the longest.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  9. Re: More than one reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people go one way
    Others go another way
    The safer reality is immune to the dangers of the other reality.
    Choose wisely, or at least choose the one with where the quarks spin the way you want them to

  10. Scientific Method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Alice and Bob, who were "outside" the closed laboratories, were then presented with two choices for conducting their own observations. They could measure their friends' results that were stored in quantum memory, and thereby arrive at the same conclusions about the polarized photons.

    But they could also conduct their own experiment between the entangled photons. In this experiment, known as an interference experiment, if the photons act as waves and still exist in a superposition of states, then Alice and Bob would see a characteristic pattern of light and dark fringes, where the peaks and valleys of the light waves add up or cancel each other out. If the particles have "chosen" their state, you'd see a different pattern than if they hadn't. Wigner had previously proposed that this would reveal that the photons were still in an entangled state."

    So they didn't measure the same experiment? What do they teach in schools these days ffs?

  11. And what are they? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More than one reality In Donald Trump's head.

    The current realities are in flux - can you be more specific here?

    Is he still "literally Hitler", or has that reality been discarded?

    How about "is going to rot in federal jail, along with his family"? Will that reality happen any time soon?

    I think the "anti-semite" reality was dealt a death blow by moving the embassy to Jerusalem, but if that didn't kill it the Golan Heights thing surely did.

    Or is he still an anti-semite after all that?

    The "racism" reality is still going strong, despite having done more for minorities than any other president in living memory (by reforming the sentencing guidelines). Also, illegal immigration disproportionately hurts minorities, and minority unemployment is the lowest it's ever been.

    Is he still racist after all that?

    Which realities are you referring to, that appear in Trump's head?

    We're all dying to know what you think!

  12. Re:You pitifully weak leftist losers & traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice performance art. And fairly representative of the average Trump MAGA hat wearer too.

  13. Re: You pitifully weak leftist losers & traito by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    weirdo

  14. This is 100% B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have been trying to justify the double slit experiment and been unable to do so for lack of ingenuity, NOT measurability.

    There are NOT multiple dimensions as defined as seperate "realities". It is just SciFi in tthe same way that electromotive force would be to those who do not understand it. The thought experiments deviate from reality so egregiously that they are hindering actual scientific discovery in this regard.

    1. Re: This is 100% B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The double slit experiment has literally nothing at all do with this.
      This is very straightforward.

    2. Re:This is 100% B.S. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes. They have a theory they know to be wrong (no quantum gravity so far, something is very fundamentally broken theory-wise) and they use it to give extraordinary explanations? That is just hubris.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:This is 100% B.S. by Jamu · · Score: 1

      I must have missed that. Why is quantum theory is wrong?

      --
      Who ordered that?
  15. Re: More than one reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one with a secure border. Obviously.

  16. LOL! "Soros LOSERS" like you = weirdos... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! "Soros LOSERS" like you = weirdos & you not only KNOW it, you PROVE it HIDING behind masks "antifa style unable to stand behind your own words (of failures) in your "crying", lmao...

    * I love it...

    APK

    P.S.=> Mueller the URANIUM ONE collusion artist w/ Hitlary is the "russian collusion" player, not Mr. Trump (which HAS been proven & again, ALL YOUR KIND DOES is lose, hehehehe)... apk

    1. Re: LOL! "Soros LOSERS" like you = weirdos... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anonymous coward accuses someone of hiding behind a mask...

  17. First Post ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... in some version of reality.

    1. Re:First Post ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First Post in some version of reality.

      Weird. I'm seeing a different state of reality. Must be some strange non-locality at the quantum level...

  18. Trump Derangement Distortion Field Collapsing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    delusional / dTrump = head explosions.
     
    MAGA. Trump in 2020.

    d888888b d8888b. db . .db .88b, d88. d8888b.
      ~ 88 ~' 88 `8D 88 . .88 88'YbdP`88 88, `8D
      . 88 . 88oobY' 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88oodD'
      . 88 . 88`8b . 88 . .88 88. 88 .88 88
      . 88 . 88 `88. 88b_ d88 88. 88 .88 88
      . YP . 88 . YD ~Y8888P' YP. YP .YP 88

  19. Re: More than one reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so women can't be President?

    REEEEEEEEEE

  20. Thanks for further proof of your "stupid", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I clearly "ID" myself, you don't & "HIDE" like the ANTIFA substandard INFERIOR you evidence yourself to be, lol....

    APK

    P.S.=> Not even a "nice try" retarded defective - thanks for the BIG LAUGH this a.m. @ "your kind": DO-nothing "ne'er-do-wells" that not only WANT welfare, but NEED itM/b> (since you can't stand on your own & join "gangs" of other "FAILS" like yourself - some gang, lol - again: A chain's only as strong as its WEAKEST LINK & your kind = ALL WEAK, lol)... apk

    1. Re: Thanks for further proof of your "stupid", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop impersonating me

      The real APK

    2. Re: Thanks for further proof of your "stupid", lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever you try impersonate APK Mr. Fake APK you only show us he is dismantling you systematically.

  21. Re: More than one reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not there. And the experiment in question of interest is observing a non-entangled photo, which is what this is. Go check on the internet

  22. Re: More than one reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with your assumption, women are Donald Trump.

  23. Re: Ah, an "ANTIFA" hiding behind a mask loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your idea of "winning" seems kinda weak and whiney to me but go ahead if it makes you feel better.

  24. LOL! Trying to 'downmod hide' this? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Truth got to you I see (lol) - You pitifully weak leftist losers & traitors? You make us all laugh. You're incapable of good individual achievement so you hate others that are (it's called ENVY - the Sin of Cain) instead of saying "Hey, I should take a page from that person's playbook & try to do good myself" - the reason WHY You can't? You KNOW you're defective, deficient, WEAK & INFERIOR - period.

    * You HAVE to try join "gangs" of somekind (like ANTIFA, what a joke) OR those that try "rope in" your kind (the easily turned into "brownshirt"/SA types only to be used as cannon-fodder to be MOWED DOWN after your "useless usefulness" (dupes) is done).

    You'll always get recruited to be used as bullet-bags & you'll always experience SELF-defeat (or doesn't the history I noted above show it OR the presidential election you "rail" & FAIL against also? Yes, they BOTH do...).

    SEE SUBJECT & EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THESE TRUTHS "GOT TO YA" (I love it) https://science.slashdot.org/c... where you tried to "downmod hide" this very same post, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> A chain's only as strong as its weakest link & you're ALL WEAK (so much for your "Paper Chain", lol) - Trump's been cleared of ALL your bullshit so guess what? YOU LOSE AGAIN as always (one would THINK you'd be USED to it, lol - & you are, but it's SO APPARENT you don't LIKE it - don't blame you - it's YOUR OWN FAULTS THOUGH getting "played" like the WEAK PUNY PAWNS you are, lmao)... apk

    1. Re:LOL! Trying to 'downmod hide' this? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK
      Go the fuck AWAY!

      (everybody clap along!)

      APK
      Go the fuck AWAY!

      APK
      Go the fuck AWAY!

      APK
      Go the fuck AWAY!

      APK
      GO THE FUCK AWAY!

  25. "This is very straightforward" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" —Richard Feynman.

    1. Re:"This is very straightforward" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" —Richard Feynman.

      Sorry, but while QM is heavy on theory and difficult, it is not magic, therefore it is understandable.

      "Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe." - Einstein

    2. Re:"This is very straightforward" by Jamu · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're using that quote on the basis you think Einstein was correct, and not what that quote is famous for (Einstein being wrong).

      --
      Who ordered that?
  26. Re: Ah, an "ANTIFA" hiding behind a mask loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More Americans voted for Hillary, and gave Congress back to the dems LOLOLOL

  27. And in other news by gweihir · · Score: 0

    Quantum Physics does find more and more evidence that their theory is nonsense ans needs a major revision. But I guess they have never heard of KISS.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:And in other news by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 0

      They avoid things like KISS at all costs, otherwise it is hard to keep the money flowing.

    2. Re:And in other news by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I guess they have never heard of KISS.

      The problem is that Quantum Physics already uses the KISS method -- it's just that universe behaves strangely enough that this is the simplest theory they can (currently) come up with that hasn't been already falsified by measured results. Plenty of beautiful, simpler theories (Newtonian mechanics, aether, etc) have already been tried and found wanting.

      Correlary: if/when they ever do figure out How The Universe Really Works, it will probably be even weirder and more counterintuitive than their current theories. Buckle up!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:And in other news by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      But I guess they have never heard of KISS.

      If the universe were simple we would have cracked it by now, then built a system to make it less simple out of sheer boredom.
      Science doesn't have to be simple, elegant, concise, easy to convey, or any other such nonsense. In fact, the only people who look for such things are non-scientists.

    4. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

      There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

    5. Re:And in other news by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Why it's here seems pretty obvious: 1) there was nothing 2) nothing can't exist without being something by virtue of being "nothing" 3) this makes the root component of the universe a consciousness capable of at least recognizing things categorically 4) that consciousness would be alone, but infinite 5) it would be lonely and fracture itself into multiple personalities and various static constructs (peoples and matter and energy) in order to cease being lonely 6) this make us all literally a piece of God, but if anyone were to succeed in reunification of the various consciousnesses it would effectively do exactly what that quote suggests: reset the universe and change it in an attempt to prevent it from being discovered again. If you were alone in a void forever you'd aim for the same thing, as would all conscious things we know to exist.

    6. Re:And in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More evidence? Well, in that case, it should be easy for you to provide a single piece.

    7. Re:And in other news by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      quit thinking on the level of an anti-vaxxer

      Quantum mechanics makes useful and provable predictions, it is not nonsense.

    8. Re:And in other news by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that makes perfect sense. The whole complex mess we have in Quantum Physics theory may primarily server to keep some people employed.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:And in other news by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, either quantum mechanics or gravity (likely both) are known to be wrong, because they are inconsistent. Hence you cannot make reliable predictions with either. Not possible. I do know they are both exceptionally well verified experimentally, but that just means their flaws are either subtle or surprising or both and they will be fundamental. There are a lot of morons that cannot see that though. You seem to be one of them.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:And in other news by Jamu · · Score: 1

      Only one is know to be wrong (because they are inconsistent with each other). You can make reliable predictions with either. We still use Newtonian mechanics and Newtonian gravity to make reliable predictions and we know those are wrong! We only know that one must be flawed, but we don't know that they both are.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    11. Re:And in other news by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      We know the models break down under conditions not found in our Earth (inside black holes, extreme energies, times near big bang...)

      But they are extremely useful for electronics, optics, for GPS satellite corrections...

      hardly nonsense when the computer and monitor you're using is a product of solid state physics which includes quantum mechanics.

  28. Nonsense In - Nonsense Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition.

    It's nice to see people conducting experiments to confirm what is already known yet this is the most obviously ridiculous thought experiment I've ever heard of.

    Of course it's in a state of superposition. Just not the same one. Bunch of fucking geniuses. The linkage is sharing of information from the original event. It's not proof of shit. It's only proof you can fool yourself into believing mystical nonsense by way of dependent probability.

  29. Physicists must be single by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Anyone who (a) has been married or (b) has kids already knows this.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  30. Re:More than one reality by ravenshrike · · Score: 0

    This just in, CNN and MSNBC have taken up residence inside Donald Trump's head in an effort to prove the collusion that tens of millions of dollars couldn't find.

  31. It's too early ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... to ink this one in.

    Recall the twin paradox and the loss of simultaneity with Special Relativity. The phenomenon are both "apparent," and "true," depending on the frame of reference.

    It took years for that to be accepted and to morph into intuition.

    Quantum mechanics is in its infancy and it will be 30-40 years before we get to the same comfortable place.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re: It's too early ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simultaneity was not lost, it has always been a feature of our frame of reference, and now that we know it's not the only one we can properly categorize this feature.

    2. Re: It's too early ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our frame of reference

      And... fail.

    3. Re: It's too early ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his point stands, Relativity simply pointed out to us that our reference frame was not special, and that there, indeed didn't exist a privileged reference frame.

      Since simultaneous events in one frame can be separate events in another, we only "lost" simultaneity in that we learned that it was specific to a reference frame, and that (if I am understanding it properly) any two events that are outside of each-other's light cones (that is neither could be caused by the other) can be made simultaneous given a specific reference frame.

    4. Re: It's too early ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our reference frames. His point fails. Events outside of each other's light cones aren't causally connected. They aren't "simultaneous", they aren't even "before" or "after".

  32. Tell it to Feynman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feynman was a knucklehead, though.

  33. Trump dies in prison either way.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because Barr doesn't have the minerals to grow a pair and uphold rule of law doesn't mean Trump won't die in prison anyway, lol.

  34. Inferences on the quantum scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't apply automatically on the cosmic scale. If they did, there would be a GUT to listen to.

    1. Re:Inferences on the quantum scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly sure the cosmos has chemical elements.

  35. False dichotomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bell's Theorem is commonly used in a false dichotomy, where it proves one thing that quantum entanglement cannot be, and people pretend that it also proves quantum entanglement must therefore be something specific.

    This is the same, where a variant of Bell's inequality is violated, proving that something is untrue. It doesn't also prove that their claim is true.

  36. Re: Thanks for further proof of your "stupid", lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop impersonating me

    - Anonymous Coward

  37. Entangled provably false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To measure the properties they interact the photon with matter, and indirectly the effect. i.e. photons interact with the matter around them (because that's how they measure the properties!) so all the properties are connected via matter.

    So the only person with two conflicting states here, is a physicist trying to sustain cognitive dissonance in the face of obvious conflicting evidence.

  38. So about the cat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the cat really is both dead and not dead at the same time?

  39. hardly the first use by DulcetTone · · Score: 1

    of "alternative facts"

    --
    tone
  40. I second that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a reality where I did read the article and one reality where I did not.
    Right now you are looking at the reality where I did not.

  41. i bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can make very nice machines with this.

  42. Education by maxiposik · · Score: 0

    Oh my God, This is too difficult. I have to write an essay on this theme. I think I'd better order it on https://essaysmatch.com/homework-paper/ just to keep my nerves because this topic is too complicated for my understanding.