Researchers from the University of Cambridge have taken a peek into the secretive domain of quantum mechanics. In a theoretical paper published in the journal *Physical Review A*, they have shown that the way that particles interact with their environment can be used to track quantum particles when they're not being observed, which had been thought to be impossible.

One of the fundamental ideas of quantum theory is that quantum objects can exist both as a wave and as a particle, and that they don't exist as one or the other until they are measured. This is the premise that Erwin Schrödinger was illustrating with his famous thought experiment involving a dead-or-maybe-not-dead cat in a box.

"This premise, commonly referred to as the wave function, has been used more as a mathematical tool than a representation of actual quantum particles," said David Arvidsson-Shukur, a Ph.D. student at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, and the paper's first author. "That's why we took on the challenge of creating a way to track the secret movements of quantum particles."

Any particle will always interact with its environment, 'tagging' it along the way. Arvidsson-Shukur, working with his co-authors Professor Crispin Barnes from the Cavendish Laboratory and Axel Gottfries, a Ph.D. student from the Faculty of Economics, outlined a way for scientists to map these 'tagging' interactions without looking at them. The technique would be useful to scientists who make measurements at the end of an experiment but want to follow the movements of particles during the full experiment.

Some quantum scientists have suggested that information can be transmitted between two people – usually referred to as Alice and Bob – without any particles travelling between them. In a sense, Alice gets the message telepathically. This has been termed counterfactual communication because it goes against the accepted 'fact' that for information to be carried between sources, particles must move between them.

"To measure this phenomenon of counterfactual communication, we need a way to pin down where the particles between Alice and Bob are when we're not looking," said Arvidsson-Shukur. "Our 'tagging' method can do just that. Additionally, we can verify old predictions of quantum mechanics, for example that particles can exist in different locations at the same time."

The founders of modern physics devised formulas to calculate the probabilities of different results from quantum experiments. However, they did not provide any explanations of what a quantum particle is doing when it's not being observed. Earlier experiments have suggested that the particles might do non-classical things when not observed, like existing in two places at the same time. In their paper, the Cambridge researchers considered the fact that any particle travelling through space will interact with its surroundings. These interactions are what they call the 'tagging' of the particle. The interactions encode information in the particles that can then be decoded at the end of an experiment, when the particles are measured.

The researchers found that this information encoded in the particles is directly related to the wave function that Schrödinger postulated a century ago. Previously the wave function was thought of as an abstract computational tool to predict the outcomes of quantum experiments. "Our result suggests that the wave function is closely related to the actual state of particles," said Arvidsson-Shukur. "So, we have been able to explore the 'forbidden domain' of quantum mechanics: pinning down the path of quantum particles when no one is observing them."

**Explore further:**
Wave properties of particles can manifest in collisions

**More information:**
D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur et al. Evaluation of counterfactuality in counterfactual communication protocols, *Physical Review A* (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.062316

## fthompson495

https://en.wikipe...n_Theory

## howhot3

## sirdumpalot

## tallenglish

Lose sync (like if one particle is interacted with by a 3rd particle like a photon and one wave function will be changed and that allows particle A and B to interact).

Spooky action at a distance is not so spooky when you look at it as two counter interacting waves with the same frequency and distance between the wave peaks as +/- (2n + 1/2) wavelength - so only particle/antiparticle or like particles pairs can entangle and they must be specific distances from each other.

## tallenglish

## Ralph

## Da Schneib

It seems that you've found a categorical error. It's rather like asserting that everyone dies at 70 years of age because that's the average age at death of most people.

## Da Schneib

You're making stuff up again, @mak.

## paxfeline

## Da Schneib

You don't know what exact position or exact momentum you will measure until you measure it. But if you measure an ensemble of particles prepared identically, then the more particles you measure (i.e. the larger the ensemble), the closer your results will be to the prediction from squaring the wavefunction.

This is necessarily a pretty high level overview; but it gets the idea across.

Good question, @pax.

## Da Schneib

## paxfeline

It seems to me that, per your description, each particle independently obeys the probability distribution. This will only be obvious once many particles have passed through the slits, in this example, but it's a consequence of each particle obeying the same probability distribution. It's visible in the ensemble because it's true of each individual particle.

## Da Schneib

## idjyit

## Bigbangcon

http://www.ptep-o...9-03.PDF

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

..... however in QM, one deals with a superposition of pure states, which can involve interference effects, which for single systems precludes some experimental results and renders others exponentially more likely. That we can't verify this without repeated measurements on identically prepared systems does not then equate a 'statistical mixture of states' with 'a superposition of pure states'.

[not insinuating that DaSchneib is doing so]

## Da Schneib

If you're just going to lie you are boring.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

The Schroedinger equation is deterministic in fact, and does not give probabilities. The Born Rule is an additional layer of interpretation of the wavefunction,... that it's square gives a probability. The Schroeder equation does not do this. I posted a link to 'Ensemble Interpretation'.

## Noumenon

IOW one can just as validly view the wavefunction as a complete description of a single system as one can view it as representing the probability description of an ensemble of identically prepared systems. It's not that you were wrong, it's just that paxfeline and mackita were not wrong either

## Da Schneib

So sue me.

And stop trying to obfuscate.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

This is about equations that correctly describe experiments, @mac, not philosophy.

## Noumenon

I didn't say that the Born rule is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, only that it is an interpretation of the wavefunction.

"[Max Born Noble Prize] for his fundamental research in quantum mechanics, especially for his statistical interpretation of the wavefunction" - Noble Foundation 1954

## Da Schneib

The problem is, then, that the complete description of a single system is probabilistic. The particle will be detected in only one location; but the wavefunction doesn't tell what that location will be. It only gives probabilities.

So no, neither @pax nor @mac got it quite right. And as usual you lied about it.

## Noumenon

That is correct, but is the case in ensembles in any case. The point being one is free to choose which of the two views one wants, wavefunction as ensemble or as complete description, and the experimental results remain the same,... which is the definition of interpretation.

Historically, Einstein argued for the ensemble view, while Bohr cautioned that it may lead to mistaking a superposition of pure states with a statistical mixture. Personally, I prefer the wavefunction as a complete description,... because in retrospect, i.e., some locations are precluded from being observed in single measurements, and how does independent identical measurements know to interfere in such a way. There is no escaping the strangeness of QM either way, except to sweep in under a epistemic rug.

## Noumenon

Not if the periodicity does not represent classical kinetic energy, as is the case in time crystals which don't exist in equilibrium. The laws of thermodynamics are sound.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

You keep putting words together in a salad like they mean something after you arranged them randomly.

## Da Schneib

The only question to be answered is where this individual actually gets paid from. North Korea, the FSB, and the PLA are pretty good guesses.

## Da Schneib

Go away, cyber operator @mac. Everyone who is paying any attention at all knows what you are.

## Da Schneib

This is risible, @mac. You come on here and pump every crackpot theory you can find. There's none of them you'll repudiate including drinking urine. How much is anyone supposed to believe? How much do you get paid per post?

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Popper recognized crackpots just fine. You're lying again, @mac urine drinker.

## Da Schneib

I mean, just sayin'.

## Da Schneib

You won't.

Subjected to experiment you fail repeatedly. See Popper.

## Da Schneib

Are you denying that now?

## Da Schneib

https://phys.org/...les.html

As usual, @macurinetherapy lies again. That's you, in black and white, on this site, this month.

## Da Schneib

Sowing chaos again. Standard strategy.

So tell me, if you don't work for the military how come you have all these tactics and strategy, Bureau 121?

Just askin'.

## Da Schneib

Standard tactic in the standard strategy. Simple as that, and transparent as glass.

This scientific discussion was derailed by your claim of stochastic determinism. It's up there about fifteen posts or so, @mac. You're the one who decided you couldn't answer that and started in on the BS, like making contradictory claims. More tactics, same strategy: sow chaos.

Like I said, how come you got all these tactics and strategy? Is that your training?

## Da Schneib

Sowing chaos by lying. Standard tactic in the standard strategy. Plain as day, anyone can go review what you've said.

You better go get the sergeant, comrade. You're over your head.

## Da Schneib

Maybe if you went away and didn't come back.

## Da Schneib

Go kiss Pootie's butt, or the latest Kim's, or whoever's butt you kiss. Nobody wants you here. You just lie and lie and change the subject and disrupt the conversation.

## Da Schneib

Sue me.

## Da Schneib

Get over it.

## Da Schneib

It doesn't say "this particle will hit here," unless the slit passed is known and there is no interference, in which case it's not a quantum experiment but a classical one and gets a classical result.

That was your thesis, it was wrong, and you're lying again.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Probably the most important quantum physics experiment of the last several decades and you've never even heard of it. You can barely stumble through Davisson-Germer, and aren't quite sure how it relates to the original Young.

## Da Schneib

This is becoming boring.

I do have a book here to read and it's beating you bad. Worse yet it's one I've read before.

## Da Schneib

Get over it.

And the change of subject again. Same tactics, same strategy: disrupt.

## Da Schneib

Second warning: boring.

## Da Schneib

Sorry man, good night and don't expect I'll bother replying again anytime soon.

## Noumenon

I don't agree with the wording of the above article because it seems to imply existence of attributes independently of observation, .... as if the "particle" took a well defined "path" through the experiment,.... when in fact according to QED ALL possible "paths" and virtual interactions must be accounted for in the probability calculation.

What I suspect is that decoherence is used in some way to infer a classical path had the "particle" been observed there (which of itself is questionable). In QM any talk of "where" the "particle" was independent of measurement is gibberish on the face of it. I'm sure the experiment is legitimate , but am also sure they didn't "solve" the measurement problem or resolve QM to intuitive sense that one could speak in such terms.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

We probably agree more than you think.

## Noumenon

The wavefunction is not an observable entity so one can not measure it per se. For multiple particles, the wavefunction evolves in a mathematical space of 3n dimensions (n = # of particles), a configuration space.

Maybe you meant that the wavefunction is determined?

Once a measurement is made, the wavefunction is determined to one state (collapse), so one knows it until it very soon evoles again, but prior to measurement it may be in superposition but still known theoretically as evolved by Schrodinger equation.

## Merrit

## Noumenon

I don't read posted links unless they are summarized first.

The wavefunction is a complex valued mathematical description of a quantum system used to obtain probabilities of observable states,... they are not physical waves. Some theories like deBroglie-Bohm propose it as a guiding wave, but is metaphysical in the sense of not being observable even in principal.

In terms of the QM theoretical description, what is observable experimentally, is represented by quantum operators. These mathematical operators are to operate on the wavefunction. One then finds the wavefunctions that solve an eigenvalue problem, to find the allowable states of the system. These operators (what is actually observed) are things like energy (Hamiltonian), momentum, position, etc.

## Noumenon

As you mentioned, such a variable would have to be non-local as proven by the Bell inequalities. The Bell theorem is empirical and independent from theory,...so it will be true no matter what future theories come about.

## Noumenon

The Bell theorem seems to me to imply the opposite, that the underlying quantum reality, does not evolve "in space" at all.

What IS space anyway? There has never been a 'space-particle' or physical 'space-field' observed in physics,... by which I mean independently of that concepts use in synthesizing experience. IOW, there is no space-field/particle/wave involved in the dynamics of any physical process, nor a space-particle in the standard model of particle physics. Space is a-priori defined instrumentally.

## Noumenon

The requirement of general covariance "takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity." - Einstein (~1916)

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

I am reviewing it.

## Da Schneib

This actually comes from string physics. The suggestion at its heart is that electroweak comes from U(1) + SU(2), color from SU(3), and gravity from some higher dimensional symmetry group in a manner we haven't yet found like SO(8) or some such. If this is correct then translations and rotations in 3+1D spacetime in fact define gravity, just as motions on the U(1) manifold define EM, on the SU(2) define the weak force, and motions on the SU(3) manifold define the color force. I don't necessarily advocate this, but that's what string physics says.

The only other quibble I found was you made the common confusion between principal and principle. And I'm teasing you only; it happens to be a pet peeve of mine.

Enjoy the 5s.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## EyeNStein

Using a weak measurement technique would only yield a probabilistic result.

If they could tag the particles presence as it passes through the infamous 'two-slits': Then either a genuinely tagged particle would pass through only one slit as particles do, or 'probably' pass through both as waves do.

Only the weakly (probably) tagged particles would retain their quantum behaviour.

## Noumenon

An alternative to unite GR and QFT that doesn't presume a space-time, is loop quantum gravity, where space-time is merely emergent from a more fundamental structure.

## Da Schneib

Quantum particles aren't little smooth balls lit from above. They're fuzzy balls in the dark.

## EyeNStein

While they are only confined to Planck scale in their own 'extra' dimensions (as any massive particle must be) but unconfined in our 3D+T they appear mathematically fuzzy. Once we measure (confine ) them relative to our 3D frame then our maths rules change.

Maths rules never really change: We just haven't unified the maths/rules properly yet.

The fact that confining energy to our 3D+T (what we call mass) causes that 3D+T to distort around that measurement must be a clue. The indication that gravity unifies at the Planck scale is another. Our maths just needs to take a unifying quantum leap. (pun intended)

In future, for 'fuzzy' read mathematically imprecise.

## EyeNStein

Its only when we measure to confine particles wrt our 3D origin that our maths goes haywire and Copenhagen interpretation switches rules on us.

We need a 'space' and some rules where the entities (we call waves or particles) remain frame invariant before, during and after an interaction.

Not that our origin focused reality will go anywhere: My car's origin is still in the garage. But Copenhagen interpretation can not be the end of the journey down the mysterious quantum rabbit hole.

## Da Schneib

As another point, there is a boundary, and of course it's fuzzy too, between how classical things behave and how quantum things behave. This can be seen experimentally in Bell test experiments and in the experimental confirmation of the Fluctuation Theorem, as well as experiments over the last 20 years or so with entanglement.

None of these things could happen if particles were like little balls whose exact parameters could be known with ultimate accuracy all the time. Like I said, quantum particles are fuzzy balls in the dark. That's just how it is; no description that requires them to have definite parameters all the time is consistent with experiment.

## Da Schneib

I said I don't advocate it; that's because there isn't a good way to verify it experimentally. But I do favor it for the above reasons.

[contd]

## Da Schneib

If you want my guess, the "landscape" of Calabi-Yau spaces will be reduced or even fully parsed by advances in computational QM and GR not too long from now, and we will see whether there is a Calabi-Yau manifold that yields the physics we see. At that point we can make calculations and see whether they yield predictions that match our universe, and test them in experiments that are within our reach.

But that's just a guess.

Explanations for where the dimensionality comes from seem to me to be a lot farther out than anything string physics says, and I am suspicious that it's possible that string physics explains everything in terms of dimensionality and LQG explains dimensionality. In other words both are right but LQG holds the position of being a true TOE whereas string physics is only a partial TOE. But that's rank speculation.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## EyeNStein

Any attempt at a defined measurement has to be imprecise or fuzzy as we cannot truly define our own origin even.

The classical world doesn't truly exist: Only an imprecisely defined quantum world from which it emerges as pseudo reality. Copenhagen interpretation is about as pseudo as this reality gets by suddenly changing its own rules.

The "pants diagram" of string theory is a much better interpretation of a quantum interaction as it doesn't have the discontinuity of rules that Copenhagen has. But we still don't understand the maths 'space' this interaction must exist in to cause our fuzzy 3D+T to be emergent.

## Da Schneib

I don't agree that classical reality doesn't exist; I think each of us probes it with our senses every moment. I do agree it might be emergent but I don't think that affects its reality or lack thereof from our personal points of view.

## EyeNStein

Since Copenhagen switches rules based on an 'event' we need an invariant view of the event, or its meaningless. However after General Relativity two observers still can disagree on weather an event has happened yet and therefore which rules apply: This is no longer invariant. So we need a deeper space (maybe string theory space) where rules can be continuous and invariance restored.

Not that we can visit this space by stepping out of our 3D+T; but we still need a mathematical description of our reality where Mercury precesses around the sun, and in the future where quantum gravity makes sense.

Even if reality still measures 'fuzzy' to us afterwards.

## Merrit

## Da Schneib

There are suggestions that so-called "dark energy" is simply a matter of where we are in the universe relative to the large-scale structures.

[contd]

## Da Schneib

In other words, in our current location expansion seems to be increasing, but not only is it not strong enough to dissolve the Milky Way, it's not even strong enough to separate the Local Group from our supercluster. Recent papers have shown analyses of astronomical data that suggest that while filaments and superclusters seem to be moving away from each other, within such structures their components are not, but instead are concentrating. This is not entirely astonishing since the matter in the filaments and superclusters makes gravity and the gravity draws them together. One would expect expansion of the voids due to concentration of the matter. The data, however, are equivocal, so this is not a sure thing.

I think, however, that we are far from applying any of this to quantum mechanics.

## Da Schneib

So when you claim Lorentz invariance is not in fact invariant, I think that you don't quite understand Lorentz invariance.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

In case you try lying about what you said again,

https://phys.org/...les.html

Keep it up and I'll start making up a list of the 100 stupidest things you've said here. And I'll start posting it. And if you think I won't, I suggest you haven't been here long and seen how well it works to show what people actually say.

You are a fool, comrade. Get a new job.

## Da Schneib

Claiming that Galilean transforms show non-locality is absurd.

Hopefully they'll take you out and shoot you for failing, comrade.

## Da Schneib

This is very much like asserting phlogiston "theory." For physics, SRT is the third rail. Step on it and you die.

I wouldn't expect a comrade from North Korea to be technically sophisticated enough to know that.

Still @macking stuff up.

## Da Schneib

Data always trumps theory. You apparently haven't figured that one out, comrade @macurinetherapy.

## Da Schneib

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's great for my morale.

## Da Schneib

Nice try comrade @macurinetherapy, another dud. If you're lucky the pistol they bring out to splash your cortical matter across the brick wall for failing will shoot a bullet made of dense aether.

## Da Schneib

I cannot be slain by the hand of a man.

I am no man.

Shinggggg....

I toy with you, comrade @macurinetherapy.

## Da Schneib

Heh.

## Noumenon

You copy/pasted this post from multiple posters at physics forums, HERE

The problem with plagiarism especially in non-formal discussion, is that you become responsible for their errors as well.....i.e. Copenhagen interpretation proponents do not advocate for objective wavefunction collapse, but rather a subjective or epistemic one, while contrarily MWI don't advocate for wavefunction collapse at all.

## RealityCheck

Re Aether: Re Water surface/body waves analogy: Happy and Safe New Year to all! :)

## Noumenon

You're being a bit disingenuous. You stated ....

...clearing linking Lorentz invariance with the CI. Since CI does not regard the wavefunction as a physical entity but rather as constituted of epistemic conditions, it need not be Lorentz invariant.

## Noumenon

What you said is...

.. which is still wavefunction collapse. There is no wavefunction collapse at all in MWI, as that theory just lets the Schroedinger formalism do the interpretation in a literal sense, and there is no collapse derived from the standard Schroedinger equation.

## Noumenon

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Did I attack someone?

## Noumenon

You copy/pasted again without quotation marks. You conveniently left off the following bit from your source,...

"Since the wavefunction merely appears to have collapsed then, Everett reasoned, there was no need to actually assume that it had collapsed. And so, invoking Occam's razor, he removed the postulate of wavefunction collapse from the theory." - Wiki

There is no wavefunction collapse in MWI.

## Noumenon

QM is manifestly nonlocal, but it doesn't allow superluminal communication. No such thing is possible. There are statistical correlations, but such correlations are not 'nonlocal communications'. I think DaSchneib's point was that since the notion of nonlocality a-priori presumes the notion of speed of light or signal velocity limit, the supposed nonlocality of Galilean relativity is vacuous.

## Da Schneib

You are correct. Since there is no means by which the wavefunction or the Schroedinger wave equation's outcome can be determined other than probabilistically this is a corollary.

## Noumenon

There is no objective collapse derived from the Schroedinger equation, therefore he had no 'objective collapse' to replace with something else to begin with. The entire wavefunction in superposition never collapses in MWI but continues to exist, ....only for each observer it 'appears' as so. If you're elevating this 'appearance' to 'subjective collapse' then I will concede your accuracy here. However, typically a subjective/epistemic interpretation of the wavefunction rejects the notion that it is a physical entity.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

True historically, but eventually the CI became associated with an epistemic (non objective) wavefunction collapse as most clearly formulated in the mathematical foundation of QM,....i.e. von Neumann's Hilbert space 'projection postulate'.

Which is similar to CI with decoherence,... and while collapse is still valid notion, it side-steps the issue by use of decoherence, but retains the non-objective characterization of alternative histories in anycase.

## Noumenon

The Goedel theorem only refutes Hilbert's program of a complete axiomatic foundation of mathematics, and Russell and Whiteheads efforts of establishing a consistent foundation of all of mathematics,...... the notion that physics was purely deductive was long since refuted.

## Noumenon

I'm not insisting that, I'm pointing out what MWI says only.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Tell us, @macurinetherapy, do you use a jargon generator for this stuff?

## Da Schneib

Meanwhile @mac gratuitously associates Peano axioms with particles and pretends that introduces Godel incompleteness into quantum mechanics. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again.

This is just FUD, a tactic @mac's handlers have taught it to satisfy the strategy of confusion and disruption. Repetition of tactics results in discovery, comrade. You have utterly failed and in doing so made it clear what your tactics are, and what strategy you follow.

## Da Schneib

And then back to the water woo.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

It becomes more and more obvious you have no idea what you're talking about the more you post. You should stop and go get stood up against a wall and shot for failing, comrade @macurinetherapy.

Let me put it short and sweet: entanglement is not an observable eigenstate.

## Da Schneib

There can be only one reason it's here: to sow FUD. To create confusion and disrupt conversation here. What a disgusting troll by an obvious anti-Western military actor on a minor science site.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

You're being obvious again, comrade @macurinetherapy.

## Da Schneib

Anyone who doesn't know this obviously hasn't studied quantum theory. And @mac doesn't know it, as evidenced by its puerile postings on this thread.

Now @macurinetherapy is claiming to be a nuclear physicist. Like we've never seen anyone do that before. Like I said, puerile. Childish. Like some caricature or cartoon of a real person.

From your postings, @macurinetherapy, you're barely qualified to be an electrical technician and would probably screw up pushing boards into a cell phone site.

## Da Schneib

More tactics. Same strategy. Transparent. Obvious. Childish.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

But I'm not going to discuss that with an anti-Western troll who uses military tactics and strategy to try to disrupt conversations it's afraid of.

## Da Schneib

We don't see what they're made of

They shout about love, but when push comes to shove

They look for things they're afraid of

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

As pointed out, there is no way to obtain an intuitive understanding of QM/QFT such that you can imagine it and describe it in poetic language. Recall that for Maxwell to develop a unified mathematical theory of EM, he imaged in his head little gears and springs and such,..... but of course did not presume such things really exist, but only as an aid in developing a proper mathematical theory that could make predictions. This is not possible in QM, as there are no such imaginable objects that can be manipulated by intuitive thought.

It is just not reasonable that microscopic reality should be expected to conform to your intuitive way of thinking. Why subject physics to this extra and arbitrary burden? Your AWT is not even a metatheory. What then is the point?

## Da Schneib

Longitudinal waves are used in plasma theory, and in QED. @macurinetherapy is making stuff up again.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Benni

You've been here frequently to falsely claim that an electro-magnetic wave can be made subject to the Laws of Physics for Kinetic Energy, that is subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to Escape Velocity Equations.

You don't even comprehend the concepts laid forth in Special Relativity, so what else could the forum expect from you other than the name calling binges you come here & spend most of your time writing up.

## Noumenon

@EyeNStein, the way STR/GTR is formulated is by use of tensors, the purpose of which is to allow invariant quantities to be expressed in terms of observer dependent space and time components.

As pointed out by Schneib, your concern is not the origin of QM effects. In fact, in experiments testing the Bell inequalities, the speed at which the wavefunction collapses* has been determined in both inertia frames of experimental laboratory and that of CMBR, to ~20,000,000 times c and ~20,000 times c, respectively.

*with assumption wavefunction represents physical wave.

## Merrit

## Noumenon

Yes, well, then it wouldn't collapse as a speed then. The point of the experiment referenced was to show an theory independent lower limit on what speed any objective collapse theory must determine.

## Noumenon

That's why QM is manifestly non-intuitive,... when intuitive concepts fail to consistently synthesize quantum experimental results,...i.e. failure of ...causality and determinism, locality and separability, counterfactuality,...

It is an unnecessary and quite arbitrary burden on physics to impose that it provide 'intuitive understanding' and naïve to expect from it knowledge of 'independent reality'. Modern physics is and should only be concerned, not with understanding per se, but rather predictive knowledge of experience.

"It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman,

..... so accordingly intuitive understanding is not important to modern science as is predictive knowledge of experience,... a problem for AWT and Strings.

## Noumenon

What you don't seem to understand is that the non-intuitive nature of QM is established empirically and independent of theory (which means all future and competing theories must incorporate these facts in some way) .... at least for non-locality with Einstein separability, indeterminacy/causality with Heisenberg uncertainty relation (which is more profound than 'observer effect' of classical physics).

## Noumenon

So, you logically are tacitly admitting then that AWT does not expect to accord with experimental observation, and therefore is not properly a scientific theory?

## Merrit

## Noumenon

For the non-locality condition which is experimentally demonstrated by violation of Bell inequalities (constructed from correlation expectation values), the conditions for locality is well defined by the notion of Einstein separability.

## Merrit

## RealityCheck

@Noumenon. Re Bell's Inequality. Please don't forget: it has NEVER been more than a VERY 'partial abstraction/interpretation' from a STATISTICALLY based analysis 'result/claim', and NOT a '100% every time' effect. Hence what @Merrit points out (especially to you/Da Schneib) is CORRECT; ie: that QM experimentalists/theorists DO NOT KNOW 'what' IT is that they are 'observing/measuring/analyzing (purely via STATISTICAL techniques, NOT 'deterministic' cause-effect 'setups/dynamics' of FUNDAMENTAL levels (even FURTHER BELOW the 'fuzzy ball' scales/dynamics of REAL energy-space, as distinct from UNreal 'time-space' analytical abstractions construct).

So please avoid using Bell's Inequality for arguments 'against' delving into the actual reality of QM dynamics/entities; and so avoiding reiterating 'cop-out interpretations' trying to sweep QM reality 'under the rug' because you decide to 'just give up' trying to ACTUALLY COMPREHEND QM reality.

Cheers all.

## Noumenon

Please don't forget that the entirety of science is statistically based as it is inductive, and that no experiment can ever be 100% efficient every time, nor 100% loophole free in every case.

However, experimentalists of course measure these inefficiencies and then take account of them. In terms of loopholes, most of the loopholes have been closed, and at least one experiment has been called loophole free.

What matters is the statistical confidence level of the result, the number of standard deviations away from local-variable theory expectations. The Bell tests have been perform to a high confidence level,... so that one can conclude it as an experimental fact that one would have to give up locality in any theory that is to account for QM experiments.

## Noumenon

Science by definition only studies empirical phenomena, as opposed to whatever underlying reality may exist independently, as the "IT". So, when one says that non-locality is a fact established by experiment, it is within such a context and not within metaphysics.

## Merrit

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

Meanwhile I will remind you that you have not and cannot work the equations for the Schwarzchild solution to GRT, viz.,

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0

m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0

e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0

R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

## Noumenon

@RC, to be more precise, the operating premise of the Bell theorem IS to interpret the wavefunction as a physical influence, so that experimental violation of the Bell inequality demonstrates that given this presumption, this supposed physical influence must be nonlocal. However alternatively, one can choose not to interpret the wavefunction as a description of a physical entity and rather then reject the other component of local realism, counterfactual definiteness,…. That elements of quantum reality have an existence or values independent of measurement.

## Merrit

## Noumenon

The Bell theorem has been tested with beryllium ions to 8 σ, NIST 2001.

## Da Schneib

## Merrit

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

Yes, I clarified this point subsequently ("to be more precise...") when I mentioned counterfactual definiteness....

They way I would phrase this, in reference to that other component of local realism that is violated, .... counterfactual definiteness,,... is that elements of QM (what you're calling parameter values), do not exist at all, until they are measured, which is to say they are effectively Created by the experimental apparatus.

This notion is in line with the standard Hilbert space formulation where the mathematical Operator is a representation of the experimental apparatus, ....it is what is observable and is independent of the wavefunction itself (operates on it).

## Noumenon

It's quite popular and I would concur with perhaps some rewording as noted. I don't regard the WF as a physical entity, so for me elements of quantum reality do not exist until they are created in measurement.

but in addition, but only philosophically (since WF is not physical anyway to me), the underlying reality does not evolve in space or time, and is conceptually formless, waiting for an experimental apparatus and subsequent interpretation to give it conceptual form (wave, particle, position, momentum, energy...),.... for which I would reference delayed choice experiment (time) and even Bell inequalities wrt entanglement (space).

## Noumenon

[People go ape-sh!t when I speak in these terms (they don't generally know much QM/GR), but the fact is, it is merely IMO merely a small and logical extension to therwise valid interpretation of QM, observations which many prominent physicists have made as well.]

The requirement of general covariance "takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity." - Einstein

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

That comment was only directed at people who would make such unwarranted presumptions and then attack, not the substance, but the form of the comment (that it's philosophy sounding). Such misapprehensions can be resolved simply by asking that valid question directly....

So, yes, I do think there is a physical and objective underlying reality,... albeit conceptually formless and unobservable as an independent reality. There must be an objective reality that at minimum informs experiment and allows for falsifiability of arbitrary theories, and for the reasons you cited, symmetries / conservation....

## Noumenon

Some physicists say that what Exists is potentiality,.... with the rough analogy of a broken-glass where such a attribute (broken) only exists on account of the apparatus where it has no meaning otherwise. Likewise it's a 'particle' only on account of the experimental apparatus.

I prefer to just say the underlying reality, while objective, is conceptually formless, and that we supply the conceptual form to an otherwise Noumenal reality, which since is conceptually formless is metaphysical and as such is unknowable of itself. This point refutes 'scientific realism' as well as opposed to scientific positivism.

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

While I have derived this conclusion originally from reading Kant (with awareness of QM),... in fact am not the only one to have extended QM interpretation the small amount beyond proper physics to think this way. Bohr and Heisenberg argued likewise, though they differed amongst themselves,... Abraham Pais calling Bohr 'the natural successor to Kant'. Another is B. d'Espagnat who argues likewise using the phrase 'veiled reality' purely from QM. He has written extensively on the conceptual foundations of QM and was involved early on with the J. Bell and the Bell inequalities .

## Noumenon

"There is no way to remove the observer, us, from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception — and hence the observations upon which our theories are based is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our brains" - S. Hawking

"[On Kant's objection to Realism that...]... knowledge must go through the mold of our a-priori synthetic judgements , the constraints of our mind, so to speak [...] This is not very far from Bohr's point of view, formulated much lator" - Roland Omnes , physicist.

## Da Schneib

I think real things have real attributes, so my opinion is that quantum particles have such attributes, but their values might be indeterminate under certain conditions (i.e. superposition). This is rather less stringent than what you appear to be saying, which seems to be that they have no attributes until they are observed.

## Da Schneib

I'm not quite sure whether this is contra the position you are taking or not, but it sounds like it is to me.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

Yes, that's what i'm saying. I agree that there is something objective (photon, electron, atom), but don't agree that that somethings attributes exist apart from measurement. I will refer to the Wheeler type delayed choice experiments, where the choice of attribute/measurement is made AFTER the photon or atom would have already interfered with itself. This imo would show that the experiment creates the attribute of 'particle' or 'wave', when neither form could have existed before hand.

## Noumenon

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

A realist would think that one can in principal attain knowledge of 'independent reality', by which I mean apart from any mind dependent elements, or that would take the wavefunction as representing a physical wave, or that would think that quantum objects have attributes that exist independently of measurement. But you like the CH approach which I don't believe to be regarded as a 'realist' theory.

I would lean toward an instrumentalist or positivist stance,... that physics does not give knowledge of reality independent of the conditions of experiment, but rather of experience. IOW, there is always a mind dependent component. See the Hawking quote. I think he is a positivist.

## Da Schneib

What's that make me?

## Noumenon

Do you mean like an electron as opposed to a proton? Yes, there is definitely an objective and independent reality that somehow informs experiment. The problem is that, as Hawking said, there is no way to remove the mind-dependent conceptual structure that we wrap around this reality in order to observe it.

So a proton or electron are not particles per se (independent of observation) because they can be diffracted if one freely chooses to observe them and interpret that observation that way. Nor can they be literal point particles (independent of observation). Nor can they be separable as if individual things when entangled, (independent of observation) etc. The conclusion must be that measurement creates these attributes and that they did not exist as such prior.

## Noumenon

The distinction between "for certain" as if there are attributes but only the values are uncertain, and those attributes don't exist apart from measurement is necessary to say. But don't think there is a 'right' answer.

My general outlook is that there is no 'problem' with QM that can't be swept under an epistemological rug,.... the strangeness is not a defect in the theory, but on account of what Hacking said.

## Hyperfuzzy

Wait for it. Wait. This will be deleted since we are stupid, or the narrator is stupid. Or truth is not allowed!

## Merrit

## Hyperfuzzy

## Hyperfuzzy

https://drive.goo...nXPRU3FG

Work in progress, so forgiveness is expected; else, I don't care.

## Da Schneib

## Noumenon

That is already the case in classical physics, unfortunately it does not work in QM. Even if one imagines some underlying process going on which we can not see that determines measurement outcomes, it would still have to be a non-local influence, as established by the Bell inequalities experiments.

## Noumenon

@DaSchneib,...which was the entire positivist point made by Bohr, Heisenberg, etc,.... and the similar considerations i've posted here'.....i.e. the non-intuitive nature of QM is an epistemic problem, and not one of the standard QM formalism's completeness, and so therefore there is no sense in looking for some metaphysically motivated explanation (pilot wave, etc) interpretation to return to a realist understanding, nor to "image" that quantum entities have attributes independently of measurement, as this is in conflict with the facts established by experiment and the standard mathematical formalism ...

...which CI (and it's CH modern form) uses, .... Hilbert Space with von Nuemann projection postulate. It is the other interpretations that seek to retain some element of realism, that actually ending up postulating metaphysical elements,.... whether that be guiding waves, multiple universes, attributes existing independently of measur.

## Noumenon

## Noumenon

## Hyperfuzzy

idiot

## Hyperfuzzy

Well, stupid can't be fixed, carry on.

## Hyperfuzzy