3 ms·

The linked article is titled "Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness". Please don't exaggerate the title. These experiments do not show that "reality does

The linked article is titled "Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness". Please don't exaggerate the title. These experiments do not show that "reality doesn't exist until it's measured". First, "realism" [1] is not the same thing as "reality". "Realism" basically means "physical quantities have a definite value". "Reality" is that thing that determines your experimental outcomes. Don't mix them up. Second, interpretations of quantum mechanics disagree wildly about what kind of weird you use to explain things. Some interpretations have "realism", some don't. Some interpretations have retrocausality, some don't. Some interpretations have FTL effects, some don't. Since all the interpretations give (mostly) the same experimental predictions, it's misleading to single one out and say just that particular brand of weirdness was confirmed. We confirmed that there's weird there. We didn't distinguish what brand of weird it is. Physicists widely disagree about which brand of weird to use, with no position achieving even a majority [2]. The original title was better. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism#Realism_and_quantum_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism#Realism_and... 2: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most...

yummyfajitas 11y ago
I don't think the title is a misrepresentation of the article, just the physics: From the article: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it..." The article does appear to be (incorrectly) arguing that this experiment proves one interpretation of QM correct. It's definitely incorrect - some years back myself and others used non-experimentalist interpretations of QM to get the same result - but it's not a misrepresentation of the article.
- Strilanc 11y ago
  Yes, the article does quote the physicist saying that. Physicists do say things like that, without adding caveats like "assuming the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the plurality opinion and my de-facto working theory day to day". But the article didn't include it in the title, and I think that was the right choice. And HN usually tries to keep the original title.
cristianpascu 11y ago
A standard case of mixing (or actually confusing) epistemology with ontology. That is to say that something doesn't exist until we get to know something about it. Or, by all means, knowing something about something is posterior to us being here AND that something being there. Here lies the danger of dismissing philosophy as a bag of words when compared with the Holy Science that works, bitches.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  I've been reading Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos" recently, and while I think it's actually a really terrible book and Nagel is incredibly uninformed on the theory of evolution, I do think he makes one really good point: the scientific method presupposes that the universe can be understood/observed/measured. It seems like such an obvious axiom, but I think it makes sense why we keep brushing up with observation / consciousness when we push the boundaries of science. It's sort of tautological in a way.
  - jgroszko 11y ago
    It will be interesting to see as we run closer and closer to the limits of observation and consciousness if we're on the verge of another huge paradigm shift in empiricism.
- kstenerud 11y ago
  Or: Through the scientific method, we have discovered something that we cannot explain, and so people are now floating wild ideas that they know MUST be true. ... Which is exactly what the scientific method was designed to prevent. Categorically stating that nothing exists without our eventual knowledge of it is the height of arrogance.
jdmichal 11y ago
To be fair, the submitted title is directly culled from the first sentence of the article: > The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

I don't think the title is a misrepresentation of the article, just the physics: From the article: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it..." The article does appear to be (incorrectly) arguing that this experiment proves one interpretation of QM correct. It's definitely incorrect - some years back myself and others used non-experimentalist interpretations of QM to get the same result - but it's not a misrepresentation of the article.

Strilanc 11y ago
Yes, the article does quote the physicist saying that. Physicists do say things like that, without adding caveats like "assuming the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the plurality opinion and my de-facto working theory day to day". But the article didn't include it in the title, and I think that was the right choice. And HN usually tries to keep the original title.

cristianpascu 11y ago

A standard case of mixing (or actually confusing) epistemology with ontology. That is to say that something doesn't exist until we get to know something about it. Or, by all means, knowing something about something is posterior to us being here AND that something being there. Here lies the danger of dismissing philosophy as a bag of words when compared with the Holy Science that works, bitches.

bweitzman 11y ago
I've been reading Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos" recently, and while I think it's actually a really terrible book and Nagel is incredibly uninformed on the theory of evolution, I do think he makes one really good point: the scientific method presupposes that the universe can be understood/observed/measured. It seems like such an obvious axiom, but I think it makes sense why we keep brushing up with observation / consciousness when we push the boundaries of science. It's sort of tautological in a way.
- jgroszko 11y ago
  It will be interesting to see as we run closer and closer to the limits of observation and consciousness if we're on the verge of another huge paradigm shift in empiricism.
kstenerud 11y ago
Or: Through the scientific method, we have discovered something that we cannot explain, and so people are now floating wild ideas that they know MUST be true. ... Which is exactly what the scientific method was designed to prevent. Categorically stating that nothing exists without our eventual knowledge of it is the height of arrogance.

jdmichal 11y ago

To be fair, the submitted title is directly culled from the first sentence of the article: > The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.