Knowing how horrifically boring things in the real world usually turn out to be, how likely is it that something horrifically boring like us shining a light on our observations are the only thing causing the quantum behavior to change from being like a particle to a wave.
Or something equally mundane and boring, a particular instrument we have to use to make our observations at that size, or etc.
Is there any proof whatsoever that it's NOT something horribly boring and simplistic?
Some double blinds?
If so I'd be willing to read some links.
Not interested in speculation with no evidence like multiple universes or etc. You CAN mention stuff like that, but only if there is actual evidence that this sort of thing is the answer, and not just creative interpretations because 'it'd be cool'.
It's a pretty big indicator that things are pretty weird.
Christopher Taylor
Will do, thanks for the direction.
Oliver Nelson
Unfortunately Bell's Theorem doesn't proof superposition, it only proves that particles can speak to each other faster than light.
But it does hint that something weird is going on, for sure!
Thomas Clark
That's not what Bell's Theorem shows, it shows that local hidden variables cannot describe the world completely.
Entanglement cannot be used to transmit information faster than light.
Julian Evans
Close enough, the point is it doesn't prove superposition, which is how it relates to the original post.
But it does brush against the mystery of how things act quantumly.
Grayson James
Superposition kind of comes with entanglement.
If you want tests of superposition without entanglement there are others like Legett-Gard inequalities. On top of that people measure quantum coherences all the time in current experimental research, particularly in quantum info.
Landon Jenkins
Another thing, quantum key distribution is a protocol that relies on superposition and it works well enough for the US military and several private companies to use it.
John Rodriguez
Thanks for the replies, it's helpful and I appreciate it. I'll look into the Legett-Gard inequalities.
Here, I got the name a bit wrong but it's a lot less famous than Bell's Theorem so it's not as fresh in most people's minds.
Nathaniel Ward
This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.
Nolan Miller
And no worries, google corrected me in a heartbeat. I was in the middle of reading that exact article when you posted it.
I'm in the equation section.
Liam Lewis
so can someone explain to a brainlet why things are in superposition and it's not some a case of "I'm not looking so it could be anywhere!!1!"
Jaxson Powell
No-one's really sure what it means"in reality". It's just that, for some reason, the only way to accurately model behaviour of quantum systems is to use some formalism which implies being in many distinct states at once.
Ryder Gonzalez
Just for the record, OP here and this comment is not me. Not that it matters, I guess. But I didn't want the guy helping me to think I asked this question.
Anthony Jones
Forgot to link to the question.
Chase Smith
No worries
Christopher Wright
>implies being in many distinct states at once. Before measurement, I should add.
Jose Rodriguez
For some reason quantum bullshit comes easy to me. The proof is already available. What exactly it proves we aren't entirely sure. The act of shining our light of perception onto things can't not have an influence on things. Systems will behave as a "wave" unconsciously. Once consciousness is introduced, a constant is required. To me it is very relatable to the question of if a tree falls in the woods without anyone around will a sound be made. If the universe exists for billions of years with no one to perceive it, how much "time" does it take to span those years? None at all. If the entire universe is in a coma an infinite amount of "time" can pass by in an instant. There's a defiance against the idea experience could influence existence because it's too spoopy. But to me it just doesn't seem as extreme a notion. Consciousness isn't acting upon it per se, it's just that there is an entanglement, because light is not instant yet it is also eternally still. As an object reaches light speed its causation itself slows to eternity. Thus there is a seemingly contradictory element of causation, where something is unknown until the future. It leaves options until measurement so once it is measured it is an actual true part of existence and not an "error". This also has something to do with the packetization or quantization of stuff. Energy can't be transferred without quantization, which to me seems self evident, and things have to be "solid" in order to be perceived. But energy needs to disperse evenly in wave form, however there is literally no causation until there is an interaction. Essentially we live in a digital universe. So there's a weird contrast where the wave is eternal and there's no causation and no motion, yet in this state it is measurable because it lacks a true position; but a particle is part of causation and is not "still", but it is solid and can be measured. We need both "solid" and "still" to have a functioning existence
Joseph Adams
>Once consciousness is introduced, a constant is required. Nah, just measurement.
If you leave your measurement apparatus running and leave the lab you'll still get collapse.
Jace Taylor
OP back, thanks for everyone's help. The Garg inequality experiments got me in the right direction. This'll be my last post in here so just wanted to say thanks to the guy or guys who got me in the right direction. Peace!
Xavier Ramirez
Cheers
You might be interested in watching the quantum videos from PBS Space Time on YT. Also the Veritasium video on entanglement does a really good non-maths explanation of why exactly it's so weird.
Has the definition of measurement been stretched in experiments? That seems like a pretty loose framework for the universe to operate on
Lincoln James
quantum behavior doesn't change from being like a particle to a wave, it's only that a wavefunction (i.e. a quantum state) has both property of a wave and a particle which are only contradictory property in a classical view of physics
a simple analogy would be like if you could only see the shadow of things, when you look at a cylinder from the top you would see a circle, while when you look from the side of it you would see a rectangle. Those point of view are only contradictory if you assume that the shadows are complete discription of what you're trying to observe