-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question
- Thread starter North_Sky
- Start date
I always thought the foundations of observed reality was sensory confirmation during early developmental months . The way you interact with the physical world conditions your brains future assumptions.
Vini darko
Major Contributor
Funny I was watching a movie on this very subject last night. Its pretty good too.
This 'paradox' is resolved by decoherence theory in conjunction with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the latter rejecting the 'absoluteness of observed events' assumption of this paper, essentially saying instead that 'everything that can happen, does happen'. I'm yet to see any supposed quantum paradox that the many-worlds interpretation can't resolve.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I didn't read anything "new" in this paradox.
Quantum entanglement has been around for years.
Quantum entanglement has been around for years.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,740
- Likes
- 6,455
The article's heading is misleading, but that is due to a problem with language. No one 'observes' anything at the quantum level. What's going on down there happens at the atomic and sub atomic level. At most one can say it's an interpretation of measurement, allowing a subsequent inference.
The idea that any of this has any influence on anything going on in anyone's day to day life, is absurd. But you find people writing articles based on speculative physics, and then asking ridiculous question such as the one posed by the article: "That tree in the forest is going to fall, and someone is there to hear it. Yet how can I be sure the falling tree really did make a sound? There might be some quantum effect I have to consider!"
It's a wonder that people who think like this--folks that are so wrapped up in incommensurate theorizing, are even able to cross the street without getting run over. But no one really thinks like this. Even the author of the article admits that 'quantum effects' don't affect anything going on his (or your) day to day life--at least life outside his laboratory.
Getting back to audio, I've read some 'theorizing' that the reason all amps sound the same with levels matched, but are experienced differently when casually auditioned, is due to some sort of quantum effect affecting our consciousness in mysterious ways. Well...why not? Could be witches, too.
The idea that any of this has any influence on anything going on in anyone's day to day life, is absurd. But you find people writing articles based on speculative physics, and then asking ridiculous question such as the one posed by the article: "That tree in the forest is going to fall, and someone is there to hear it. Yet how can I be sure the falling tree really did make a sound? There might be some quantum effect I have to consider!"
It's a wonder that people who think like this--folks that are so wrapped up in incommensurate theorizing, are even able to cross the street without getting run over. But no one really thinks like this. Even the author of the article admits that 'quantum effects' don't affect anything going on his (or your) day to day life--at least life outside his laboratory.
Getting back to audio, I've read some 'theorizing' that the reason all amps sound the same with levels matched, but are experienced differently when casually auditioned, is due to some sort of quantum effect affecting our consciousness in mysterious ways. Well...why not? Could be witches, too.
Yes, probabilistically. In the many-worlds interpretation, that question is equivalent to: 'can we predict the probability we will observe any particular subset of all possible future branches of a given quantum system?'
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #13
Exactly.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
+1
I was going to write something, but anmpr1's post sums it (and a lot more) up perfectly.
Yea we call it dogging .
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
It's actually been around ever since the Big Bang, nudge nudge wink wink.
- Thread Starter
- #17
We sure can (predict the future).
I give you a simple example: In the times we are living @ this very moment right now in the year 2020 and the reality surrounding us (the entire world within), we know that Amazon shares will keep going up, and Wal-Mart shares as well. It is inevitable.
We also know that more people will get infected by the Coronavirus and, affected as well.
We know with pretty good estimate that the number of departed (deaths) will keep expanding. It is also inevitable based on the conditions and actions performed all over the countries in the world, plus the population numbers (total 7.8 billion inhabitants) and the concentration of larger cities with the very contagious virus...Corona.
We also know that poverty is going to get much worse globally, and on the other scale the rich will get much much richer much much faster...Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, etc. It is also inevitable.
We can even predict that these people will have much greater power to influence tomorrow's culture globally. They will be the real leaders of the real world of tomorrow, like they were yesterday and today but to a much greater extent tomorrow.
It is inevitable.
I can go on on protests and revolutions but there's no need as we are already living it.
Now, my personal opinion (we all have one, more or less based on the known and also the unknown): A vaccine or vaccines won't be the cure, changes will.
Killingbeans
Major Contributor
IMO that word only makes sense when used as an afterthought, as in 'it was inevitable'. Nothing is inevitable when talking about the future. If Earth gets hit by a big asteroide (or some other violent cosmic event) tomorrow, then all of those inevitabilities goes out the window.
All we can do is wish for a certain future based on what has already taken place and aim our influence in that direction.
- Thread Starter
- #19
I mainly used that expression because I saw it before in a movie ...
If there's cause there's effect.
⚖ https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pr...ting-scatterplots/v/correlation-and-causality
Last edited:
The 'new' thing they claim is that there are greater restrictions on the assumptions any interpretation of quantum mechanics can have while being consistent with observations, compared to the restrictions Bell's theorem imposes. Several interpretations of quantum mechanics (including many-worlds) remain unaffected by these new restrictions however.
Last edited:
