April 25, 2012 feature

# Does the quantum wave function represent reality?

(Phys.org) -- At the heart of quantum mechanics lies the wave function, a probability function used by physicists to understand the nanoscale world. Using the wave function, physicists can calculate a system's future behavior, but only with a certain probability. This inherently probabilistic nature of quantum theory differs from the certainty with which scientists can describe the classical world, leading to a nearly century-long debate on how to interpret the wave function: does it representative objective reality or merely the subjective knowledge of an observer? In a new paper, physicists Roger Colbeck of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, and Renato Renner who is based at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, have presented an argument strongly in favor of the objective reality of the wave function, which could lead to a better understanding of the fundamental meaning of quantum mechanics.

As Colbeck and Renner explain in their paper published in *Physical Review Letters*, there are two prominent interpretations of the wave function dating back to its origins in the 1920s. In one view, the wave function corresponds to an element of reality that objectively exists whether or not an observer is measuring it. In an alternative view, the wave function does not represent reality but instead represents an observer's subjective state of knowledge about some underlying reality. In 1927, Niels Bohr and others advocated this alternative view in the Copenhagen interpretation, in which the wave function is merely a mathematical probability that immediately assumes only one value when an observer measures the system, resulting in the wave function collapsing. Still others disagree with both views: in the '30s, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that the wave function does not provide a complete physical description of reality and suggested that the entire theory of quantum mechanics is incomplete.

In their paper, Colbeck and Renner illustrate the difference between the two main views of the wave function's probabilistic nature with a simple example:

“Consider a meteorologist who gives a prediction about tomorrow’s weather (for example, that it will be sunny with probability 33% and cloudy with probability 67%),” they write. “We may assume that classical mechanics accurately describes the relevant processes, so that the weather depends deterministically on the initial conditions. The fact that the prediction is probabilistic then solely reflects a lack of knowledge on the part of the meteorologist on these conditions. In particular, the forecast is not an element of reality associated with the atmosphere but rather reflects the subjective knowledge of the forecaster; a second meteorologist with different knowledge may issue an alternative forecast. Moving to quantum mechanics, one may ask whether the wave function that we assign to a quantum system should be seen as a subjective object (analogous to the weather forecast) representing the knowledge an experimenter has about the system or whether the wave function is an element of reality of the system (analogous to the weather being sunny).”

Colbeck and Renner argue that, unlike a weather forecast, the wave function of a quantum system fully describes reality itself, not simply a physicist's lack of knowledge of reality. In their paper, they logically show that a quantum system's wave function is in one-to-one correspondence with its “elements of reality,” i.e., the variables describing the system's behavior. The claim's only assumptions are that measurement settings can be freely chosen and that quantum theory gives the correct statistical predictions, both of which are usually implicit in physics research, as well as experimentally falsifiable.

“This [idea that the wave function represents reality] means that the wave function includes all information that is in principle available about the system, i.e., nothing is missing,” Renner told *Phys.org*. “Nevertheless, even if we knew the wave function of a system (and therefore reality), its future behavior cannot be predicted with certainty. This means that there is inherent randomness in nature.”

The scientists' claim relies on two seemingly opposite statements: First, any information contained in the system's complete list of elements of reality (the list is complete if it contains all possible predictions about the outcome of an experiment performed on the system) is already contained in the system's wave function. That is, the wave function includes all the elements of reality. The physicists formulated this statement in a paper last year. The second statement, which the physicists present here, is that a system's list of elements of reality includes its wave function. Taken together, the two statements imply that a system's wave function is in one-to-one correlation with its elements of reality. By showing that the wave function fully describes reality, the argument also implies that quantum mechanics is a complete theory.

“Take again the analogy to a meteorologist's work,” Renner said. “In this analogy, the data and models used by the meteorologist take the place of the wave function, and reality corresponds to the current weather. If there was a one-to-one correspondence between the meteorologist's data and the weather, we would be in a very favorable situation: the forecast would then be as accurate as it can possibly be, in the sense that there does not exist any information that has not been accounted for.

“Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system's wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”

This argument is not the only one made recently in favor of the wave function's complete representation of reality. In November 2011, a team of physicists from the UK (Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, and Terry Rudolph) argued that the subjective interpretation of the wave function contradicts plausible assumptions in quantum mechanics, such as that multiple systems can be prepared in a way so that their elements of reality are uncorrelated. While this approach is completely different from that of the current paper, the support from both papers may help point to an answer to one of the most long-standing debates in physics. In the future, Colbeck and Renner plan to work on making the assumptions less stringent than they already are.

“Our result is based on the assumption that an experimenter can, in principle, 'freely' choose which measurements he would like to carry out,” Renner said. “Hence, if one is ready to accept this assumption, our answer can be considered final. However, it is certainly legitimate to question this 'free choice' assumption (as well as the way 'free choice' is defined). We are currently working on a proof that the assumption can be replaced by a weaker one (which one might term 'partial freedom of choice').”

**More information:**Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner. “Is a System's Wave Function in One-to-One Correspondence with Its Elements of Reality?”

*PRL*108, 150402 (2012). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.150402

*Copyright 2012 Phys.Org
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.*

**Citation**: Does the quantum wave function represent reality? (2012, April 25) retrieved 17 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html

## User comments

brodixDeathclockTerrivachardo137SoylentGringwredeI agree that we can never "look sharp enough and deep enough" to see beyond the limits of quantum mechanics. But that does not mean that there isn't a "world of physics" at those sizes -- it merely means that I agree that we will never construct a "powerful enough microscope", for lack of better wording here.

Put another way, I don't think, say, a photon notices it's time to collapse, and then it quickly throws dice on exactly how to collapse. No. I rather think that it actually /does/ have an inner structure that has a state that oscillates.

kochevnikI see frequent mention of the phrase "randomness." Einstein did not accept this idea and it could be instead the superposition of all consciousness in the universe. Particularly in an unevolved universe where the average "brain" is a hydrogen atom the net consciousness relayed by torsional scalar waves would indeed resemble randomness. As the universe evolves to be more densely packed with minds an emergent measurable order could appear in particle experiments.

gwredeBut the fact that we will never be able to measure it, should NEVER be taken to mean there wasn't a definite state there. To equate these two sounds as stupid as saying that the ocean has an edge and you should never sail there.

If one understands this, then there's even a freebie waiting: you can throw "spooky action at a distance" to the trash bin, too. Then all what Entanglement means to you, is merely that you have synchronized a part of this inner state with another particle. And it will stay synchronized until it gets nudged out of sync.

The mere fact that we can do Entanglement simply proves that there is a deterministic inner state.

EverythingsJustATheoryThe problem is that measuring it (even if it was possible) requires the input of outside energy, which thus changes the initial inner state.

Cynical1This is gonna get all kinds of nasty retorts, I know, but...

Why can't we devise a means to test/measure without inputting energy?

SoylentGrinYou have to insert or remove something from a system in order to measure it. Either one messes with the system. At the macroscale, it doesn't matter much, but at the quantum level, removing a photon to measure it would be like removing a patient's torso to measure their blood pressure.

allotrope6It's because without energy, you wouldn't be measuring *with* anything.

saijanaihal_swyershal_swyersThis is what is meant by "The Theory of Complementarity".

Pauli: "Due to the indeterminacy in the property of a system prepared in a specific manner (i.e. in a definite state of the system), every experiment for measuring the property concerned destroys (at least partly) the influence of a prior knowledge of the system on the (possibly statistical) statements about the results of future measurements."

TerrivaThis wave is not "weird" - it's actually normal wake wave, which is formed around every object traveling across massive particle environment like the foam. The shaking of vacuum around such object makes it more dense temporarily in similar way, like the shaking of every foam. Due the neverending Brownian noise of massive environment this wake wave is formed even around particles at rest and it manifests itself like their gravity field.

TerrivaTerrivaGoingTerrivaTelekineticMWI is not in the least bit trivial- it's earth-shattering! Many Worlds? That's an infinite number of universes with an equally infinite number of circumstances and outcomes. I can't think of a more explosive or controversial way to view reality.

TerrivaTelekineticTerrivaTelekineticTerrivaTelekineticTerrivaTelekinetichttp://www.youtub...;list=UL

TerrivaTelekineticsimplicioHypothesis and theory are not the same. Hypothesis is like educated guess, but a theory is developed later with more details by testing hypotheses that can be falsified.

bewertowGodel's incompleteness theorem is a statement about the foundations of math.

thingumbobesquirethingumbobesquireFleetfootUnfortunately for that idea, the statistics say otherwise. Aspect's experiment which proved the violation of Bell's Inquality by QM is not compatible with the existence of a hidden internal state. It shows that the result is "chosen" by the measurement.

Cynical1Again, a stupidly simple question... what stops us from someday developing a means to measure without interacting? Therefore, to avoid "choosing" the observation?

Answer? Nothing. Just a matter of time til someone does it.

DaFrankerSo, "Science" is now throwing a bunch of stuff at other stuff, looking at how many times something happened out of all attempts, and saying "This is reality!"? No, I call that counting. Current "interpretations" of experimental results, especially in frontier fields of science, are often biased or logically flawed, since they make implicit assumptions about a bunch of factors without mentioning those assumptions, which leads to more implicit assumptions relying on these earlier interpretations, and so on and so forth.

Basically, lots of what QM scientists interpret from their experiments and claim to be the only possibility is really just one possible ideas, with other possibilities being simply ignored.

MumrahThis is how I see the quantum universe working.

IronhorseAantialias_physorgThat's how all science works. Thorwing stuff at a disease and see if it cures it. Throw stuff up and see how often it comes down. Throw stuff into a reactor and see how often it reacts...

A lot of research is based on statistics and probabilities. The easy, 100% causal relations are (mostly) known.

At the end of the day theory is all well and good - but the best theory means nothing if it doesn't agree with observation.

Such as? And please name TESTABLE possibilities and explain how they may be tested (and then show that they HAVEN'T been tested by scientists already)

And then explain how those tests are not "throwing stuff at other stuff and looking at how many times something happens"

eloheimIf I recall correctly, the recent spat of papers on this topic (mentioned in the article) are in opposition to Bohmian scheme's, because they purport that the wave function we see and know (and write down) is the complete description of reality, leaving no room for hidden variable.

I remember seeing some people saying that [Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph; 2011] was the final nail in the coffin for such approaches, but their defenders claimed (vehemently, I might add) that PBR dismantled a long out of date straw-man, which everyone already knew was wrong anyway, and no sefl-respencting Bohmian would every endorse

baudrunnerDaFrankerMy first thought would be "The expansion of the universe" and "Dark Energy", with innumerable possible alternatives that haven't been tested.

Of course, we'd have to go over the "proven" "theorems" that won "nobel prizes" before we could talk about that reasonably, since it's already been "proven" that the universe is "expanding". Yeah. Same goes for the discrepancies relating to dark energy and dark matter. [/sarcasm]

Many possibilities are "testable". However, that is not what I argue. You added the notion of testability in there, I did not. Too many ideas get classified (usually permanently) as "untrue" precisely because there is KNOWN way to "verify" them, in favor of biased "statistics".

TurritopsisA foot and hand counter comes along and says: I've overridden the uncertainty for the sum of 5 and 6. The sum is certainly 11.

antialias_physorgAnd if you think there are 'proven' theorems then you understand nothing about scioence at all.

There are successfull onesw - but ther is never anything that is beyond doubt in science.

Those that alread contradict observation (like dense aether or electric universe) - yes. Those get discarded.

Those that are inherently untestable (like teh god hypothesis) - yes. Those get discarded bvecause they never provide any useful information.

antialias_physorgStatistics, BTW aren't biased. Statistics may be wrong, though. You may get 100 heads in a row but still have a balanced coin. That does happen. The current standard is that you have to show accuracy to 95% certainty (or better) for something to be scientifically acceptable - taking into account all reasonable other factors.

Yes, that means that one out of every 20 scientific results will turn out to be a fluke (though, since most publications are better than 95% the number of flukes is much lower than that).

That is a very good tradeoff.

Make the barrier too high and you get no results at all (because the effort for experiment íncreases exponetially). Too low and the results mean nothing.

TerrivaNow we can put the question: what makes the dense aether model so dangerous for proponents of mainstream science, when they're using such a propaganda? What makes them so hateful?

TerrivaThe approach of physics is incredibly religious in this extent - it avoids all questions about deeper nature of facts obstinately in similar way, like ancient theologists, who learned, we shouldn't put the questions about God's will. The religious convergence of both approaches is quite apparent here. For example, we have Couder's experiments, which models the quantum wave with water surface - but which memo the physicists actually took from this analogy? IMO they're watching it dully and repeat mindlessly: "you know, the physics doesn't bother with WHY questions, only with HOW question". Which socio-psychological mechanisms enforce them in their ignorant stance?

antialias_physorgMichelson Moreley/Hammar? All of Relativity? Sagnac Effect? You name it...

It's been tested and found to not agree with observation. So it got binned. That happens, sockpuppet. Deal with it.

TerrivaSuch stance has absolutely no logics in it - can you see it? Whole generations of physicists (not just you) willingly live in this blatant stupid propagandistic lie. Why is it so?

TerrivaNow - how is it possible, after then, that the Michelson-Morley experiment, which proved the constant speed of light is interpreted in exactly the opposite way, i.e. like the REFUSAL of just the only existing model, which is actually able to predict it?

If you cannot answer this question, then you simply don't understand both the dense aether model, both the Maxwell's theory, both the relativity and you're not competent to judge me at all. You're too stupid for to realize, how deeply stupid you actually are.

vacuum-mechanicshttp://www.vacuum...id=19=en

spacealfTerrivaantialias_physorgAny aether model allows for movement relative to the aether. Movement relative to the aether should show up in SOME way. Especially change in movement direction relative to an aether should produce a host of effects.

None are observed. End of story.

Originantialias_physorgOriginhttp://rmp.aps.or...3/p203_1

http://www.relati...2006.pdf

See, for example, the papers by Dayton Miller (1933), Allais (1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000), Cahill (2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005), Cahill and Kitto (2002), Consoli (2003, 2005), Consoli and Costanzo (2003a, 2003b, 2004), Deen (2003), DeMeo (2001), Munera (1997, 1998), Sato (2006), Selleri (2000), and Vigier (1997).

I'm not talking about some conspiracy, because the human stupidity and ignorance doesn't need to be organized with some conspirators at all. But the fact, you're trying to cover these experimental results (or you don't know about it, so you're incompetent) speaks for itself.

DavidMartinDavidMartin'...like we will never know the exact value of Pi, we will never know "what really goes on" when the wave function collapses, or more accurately, when our experiment yields a measurable result.'

How do you know? It's an unsolved mystery. Do you know what that means? An unsolved mystery means we don't know what the answer is. The first thing is to stop assuming things, because with many mysteries that have been solved, it turns out that false assumptions were holding us back. Look at it as something you don't know, not something you do know.

antialias_physorgErm..'experimental results'? Your citation gives no experimental results. It's a paper by an IT business consultant (citing mostly himself in the references - the sure sign of a kook)

That's like Oliver citing himself on neutron repulsion.

spacealfTo me that still means it ends up subjective and getting to objective is a probability that ends up shy. It's like saying that other people will not put those scientists in a straight-jacket and let them bounce off of the padded walls of the insane asylum. What's the probability of that happening at some time in the future if indeed there is inherent randomness in nature but somehow now they know that all information is present in the wave function but can not still tell the future with absolute certainty?

No, the result at least to me is still subjective in the end no matter how they try and tell their story and result they assume to come up with.

antialias_physorgYou are aware that the wave function is a measure of probability?

The square is the probability density? It does not contain 'all the information' because that type of digital information (something is or isn't - like we are used to in macroscopic/everyday situations) is not contained in it.

There is no certainty here because that type of information is intrinsically not present in quantum mechanics.

Then do the math. It's objective. You don't need to take their ord for it. It's not all that hard.

DavidMartinBut the fact is, when the wave function collapses into a single state out of many possibilities, something happens. We don't know what it is. But one day we will know what it is, because it's very specific, and we're gonna pin it down one day.

spacealfTurritopsisBased on the variables the subject incorporates in the calculation. There is no way of excluding subjective reasoning. Not even mathematically.

Imperfect beings aren't aware of all known variables. Therefore, the calculations deemed as objective are still uncertain at the core. No way around this conundrum. All we can do, is the best we can. Include all *currently known data and deduce interactions.

Math is perfect, objective as you say. Unfortunately, humans aren't. So any calculation carried out by a human subject is still subjective. Humans ruin the objective perfection that is math. Some more so than others.

But, although the state of uncertainty is a certainty today, it may not be so tomorrow, humanity possesses the power of evolution. We may find the ultimate answer, the objective truth.

As much as I yearn for it, I simultaneously fear it. I mean: what would life be without mystery? Without uncertainty?

TerrivaDuring process of so-called observation the motion of vibrating and undulating blobs of observer and observed object will get synchronized ("entangled") and their undulations will disappear from their local mutual perspective ("collapse of quantum function"). This process isreally as simple, as it is - and the only reason, mainstream science cannot explain/imagine it is, it thinks about QM in abstract way of formal math. Here you can find some mechanical analogies of quantum entanglement

TerrivaTerrivaTerrivaDemoniWaariBut I've been wondering that doesn't a new theory have to predict something new which the old theory sannot predict? And after that when we discover that it really was so we change the base theory.

So my question is that can dense aether theory do something similar to this?

Oh and I'm not any physics professor who understands much of this hyperdimensional multi-world Michelson-Morley stuff. Though I actually do know what a wave function is.

TerrivaSo that the main domain of predictions of aether model resides in domain of scalar waves and its application. The domain of scalar waves begins at the CMBR scale and all longer waves are having scalar character more pronounced. The AWT therefore predicts the phenomena related to scalar wave shielding and reflection (for example the negative radiation pressure of SW). It predicts the symmetry of Universe expansion around CMBR scale. It predicts the mass of photons and their energetic dependence, the superluminal speed of gravity waves and their solitons - neutrinos, etc.

TerrivaDemoniWaariSo AWT predicts lots of stuff, I get that, but are there things that it predicts which we have actually measured and seen? And the old theories can't account for?

bkortThey did this by positing a scenario that departs from Heisenberg's scenario. Heisenberg assumes that a particle arrives in the observer's field of view, and nothing extra is known about the particle until it is measured.

But Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen proposed a scenario in which something important is known about the particle before it is measured. They postulate that the particle has a "birth certificate" that discloses when and where the particle was born, before it set out on its journey to the distant observer.

TerrivaTerrivaTerrivaIt appears so only for long wavelength photons which do everlap heavily. The more energetic photons we will use in double slit experiment, the more the resulting interference pattern appears composed from isolated points, like this. The QM cannot account to this pronounced change of experimental result at all - and the physicists cannot realize it, despite they have these pictures before eyes all the time.

TerrivaNow many interesting question arise - for example, how large the hard core of photon actually is? And when the size of photon becomes comparable with size of pea or grain of salt, for example?

TerrivaBut... at the case of gamma ray diffraction we have an apparent problem, because these photons do diffract in the same way, like the electrons, so that their hard core must always move slower, than the de Broglie wave, which controls its path. It would mean, for energetic photons applies the same limitation, like for every massive particles, in another words, these photons are massive!

DavidMartinAn analysis of the wave function finds that it doesn't correspond to something that emerges from the observer's knowledge of the state of the system, but rather corresponds to the system itself.

The reason that some have looked carefully at the role of the observer is that when the probability wave collapses, that is, disappears, and a single state takes its place, it tends to happen right after an observation has been made. So the observer may have something to do with it. But the probability wave is separate from the observer's view of things, so it looks like it is somehow a representation of reality too, just as the picked out state may be a representation of reality.

DavidMartinhttp://phys.org/n...ior.html

Right at the beginning it says:

"At the heart of quantum theory is the idea that objects in the quantum world will sometimes behave like particles, and other times behave like waves. This ability to combine exclusive properties is called a quantum superposition and is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics."

No, quantum superposition is the superposition of states of a system before the wave function collapses. At that point it's all waves, probability waves, about what states might be possible. The superposition of states is part of the wave nature, not the same as the wave/particle duality.

DemoniWaarionlinementorTerrivaTerrivaJitterbewegungI disagree. Many scientists have wished they never said never. The "never" using light to see smaller than a certain wavelength of light for a microscope comes to mind. At one time it would take more enery to split the atom than you could get out of it.

daywalk3rDoes that mean that anyone who is travelling by plane,

is DEAD and ALIVE at the same time?

From a QM perspective, this is perfectly fine, as the state of a person in flight is uncertain, until the flight is over (its wave function collapses).

This is a crude example of how a wave function of state of one entity (a person in flight) is inherently dependant on another (the flight itself).

It also works vice-versa, for example if we evaluate the wave function of state of the pilot, relative to the wave function of the flight (pilot dies -> flight over).

This can be extended ad-infinitum in both directions (scale up/down), and so the world we live in could be thought of as an infinite cascade of such wave functions.

However, statistics does not reality define..

The viability of Colbeck's logic lingers on the existence of a fundamental inseparable "building block".

antialias_physorgIf you go by the multiverse interpretation: yes it does.

(Though that is as yet untested and probably will remain untestable)

DavidMartinThe plane flight analogy, by contrast, assumes we're talking about probabilities about what happens at a later point in time. That's different, and in that context, of course it's unsurprising that many different possibilities exist.

MoebiusLeft and right is a good example of something that doesn't really exist. Don't believe it? Which side of the street are the odd numbered addresses on? Why doesn't a mirror reverse top and bottom?

I think infinity and time are also in this category. Who knows what else?

antialias_physorgIt also doesn't reverse left and right. When you lift your left arm your mirror image also lifts the arm on the left side (only when you try to see things from the "mirror person's" point of view - i.e. turning yourself mentally 180 degrees to step into its shoes - are left and right exchanged. But that is a mental thing - not a property of the mirror).

There is actually a left/right asymmetry in nature with regards to matter (e.g exhibited in weak decay).

http://en.wikiped...symmetry

Though symmetry is still perserved at another level because matter to the left behaves like antimnatter to the right

(i.e. if you switch left and right AND a particle for it's antiparticle you're back to where you started)

julianpenrodTerrivaantialias_physorgActually, if you take the right formula (i.e. if you don't forget to include Maxwell) then it tells you exactly what will happen when it hits the ground.

OF COURSE will you get a wrong answer when you leave out (more than) half of the laws of nature. What else did you expect?

daywalk3rIt was used to show what the "wave function" part is about, and how it is treated.

You see, the major problem with todays "quantum picture" is, that it tries to define everything with the quantum wave function whilst a priori considering it to be absolutely fundamental, ergo of a non-emergent/non-causal origin (quantum fluctuations -> random).

This beggs the question: What if not? What if there are "sub-functions" (pilot->plane analogy)?

Then the QWF would become a "subjective" representation of the sum of these sub-functions.

Therefor, any QM interpretation which considers the QWF to be "objective", is bound to the existence of some basic fundamental QWF.

Only those who don't fully understand what QM is/does, have those kind of "problems". Unification of such fundamentally different approaches, is just nonsense.

brodixAn interesting paper on redshift as an effect of such "wave-packets:" http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf

An equally interesting interview with Carver Mead, in which he makes a similar argument for electrons as being their own wave:

http://freespace....Mead.htm

DavidMartinThe bad physicists either deny the that clues exist, or deny that the puzzle is unsolved, or split hairs about definitions of things. They hold back progress, by avoiding taking the problem head on. But someone like Einstein was not afraid of not knowing something. If he didn't know something, he wanted an answer.

With quantum theory, we find a bunch of things that we can't interpret. All the good physicists have admitted it... some time ago in fact. It hasn't gone away, but there are more people in denial nowadays.

OriginOriginHorusgwredeTerrivaTerrivaDavidMartinTerrivaParticle makes a wake wave around itself during its travel trough vacuum foam (which is knowns as a de-Broglie wave for decades). This wave interferes with both slits at advance under formation of flabelliform patterns. The vacuum becomes more dense at the place of these patterns, because it always becomes more dense at the places, where it exhibits higher energy density in similar way, like the soap foam, which gets thickens whenever shaken. The flabelliform patterns therefore serving as a waveguides for subsequent motion of particles and they do enhance the probability of its impact at the target in their directions.

TerrivaDavidMartinGood to see you have a view of what happens, hope it makes predictions. Good luck with that. I'd to say to anyone looking at these puzzles, don't dismiss them without trying to answer that central question.

TerrivaBriefly speaking, the Couder's water surface analogy didn't mimic the role of observer in quantum mechanics yet - but I do believe, it's principally capable of it.

DavidMartinTerrivaThe observation of the photons along whole path is the crucial condition here: at the moment, when you release your attention, you're releasing entanglement with the photon due the decoherence and such unmonitored photon may get the random path again.

TerrivaDavidMartinTachyon8491Tachyon8491theonOriginhttp://www.nature...120.html

I presume, Nature journal is sufficiently reliable source for you. The whole trick is, the statistical interpretation of QM is relevant for SINGLE experiment, but with analysis of multiple experiments you can get the additional data, which extend the statistical interpretation in objectively way - not just subjectively.

OriginNirgalDavidMartinOriginDavidMartinTachyon8491Tachyon8491cntnd: a latent range (a < X < b) where "objective reality" yields to subjective perceptions in projective psychodynamics, in the application of directed energies - and does this effect operate beyond the human macroscale and threshold into the quantal microdomain? In the study of entanglement between psychodynamics and matter-energy complexes there appears to be seductive evidence for such effects...

DavidMartintasha90like Arthur replied I am shocked that a student able to earn $9035 in four weeks on the internet. have you seen this web link NuttyRich.com

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more